Beverley Hughes: If that were the case, yes, I would be concerned. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) who speaks from the Front Bench have stated that that chain has closed. From our information, I understand that that is not accurate. The chain has changed hands, as such businesses do, but we cannot find any reports of intentions to reduce places. That rumour and a number of other comments from Opposition Members are untrue. In fact, there has been increasing stability in the market over recent years, particularly for private providers. That reflects both the investment that we are making and our commitment to maintaining a diverse sector.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. It is in parents' interests that we ensure that providers and local authorities understand that this is a free entitlement. That is the point of it. We do not want to discriminate between parents who could afford to pay top-up fees and those who could not. From my discussions with local authorities and the broad swathe of providers, I am convinced that the £3 billion a year that the Government are committing to this free offer is sufficient. Provided it is administered properly by local authorities—we are looking at that—there is no reason at all for any provider to ask for a top-up fee, and we will certainly not allow them to do so.

Beverley Hughes: I know that the hon. Lady is keen to develop a campaign on the issue, but the points that she makes here and elsewhere are simply not true. They are causing needless concern for parents. The experience over the vast swathe of the country is that the money going through local authorities is sufficient. In some instances the way in which it is being allocated by local authorities should be examined. I am sure she is aware that that is why on 7 March we launched a consultation document on schools, early years and 14 to 16 funding, including specific proposals which, if they are supported, will ensure better alignment in allocation across the sectors in local authorities where that might not be the case. I am convinced that the £3 billion is sufficient and that the provision must remain, as it is at present, free to parents at the point of access. We will not have the kind of two-tier system that the hon. Lady wants. We do not want vouchers and we will not allow discrimination—

Andrew MacKay: if he will make a statement on teacher vacancies.

Jim Knight: We have commissioned a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers on leadership in schools. We are doing a series of things involving the National College for School Leadership in respect of head teachers. Lord Dearing published his report this week in respect of language teaching, and we are addressing some of the recommendations. The statistics on maths teachers are very encouraging, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning launched some new measures in respect of science, technology and maths this week. The overall picture is that we have more than 36,000 more teachers than we did 10 years ago, and we have added 140,000 more support staff so that teachers can concentrate on teaching. The general trend is extremely positive.

Alan Johnson: Lord Dearing has done a valuable task, and his report is full of good sense. We have accepted his principal recommendation that we should make languages compulsory in primary schools, and we will do so at the next available opportunity when we review that key stage. As for children in secondary schools, we need to do much more to encourage schools to go for a much higher benchmark. On Saturday, I was at Wakefield City high school, which is in the middle of a council estate and has a large intake of pupils who have free school meals. The number of students taking languages has not changed since we moved from compulsion to entitlement. That is because of inspirational, very good-quality languages teaching and a method of teaching that enthuses youngsters. That represents a large part of Lord Dearing's recommendations, and we should ensure that it happens in every secondary school.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Wakefield City high school with me on Saturday, when its inspirational head teacher, Alan Yellop, told us how he took a school where just 7 per cent. of pupils were getting five good A to C grades at GCSE in 1994 to one that is not only performing above the national average in absolute terms but is in the top 5 per cent. of the country, in value-added terms, for maths. Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider the need for capital financing to rebuild that school? Following our tour, I am sure that he will agree that we urgently need a significant investment in the school to ensure that its high-quality teaching and inspirational leadership continue.

Alan Johnson: There we have it. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), MPs are not only visiting schools but doing so on a Saturday.  [ Interruption. ] There were children in attendance. My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a tremendous school with tremendous leadership, great teaching and improved results. The capital spend needs to go in, because the school is in a poor condition. We understand that. That is why we are refurbishing and rebuilding every single secondary school and have targeted the capital funding available to local authorities to deal with schools such as Wakefield City high. I hope that that school will soon have an infrastructure to match its tremendous teaching.

Alan Johnson: The achievement in Hartlepool is truly remarkable. It should be a beacon to other areas of the country, which have similar circumstances but have not managed the same achievement.
	I obviously cannot comment on the comprehensive spending review. However, we are locking £66 billion of funding into the Department this year—record amounts are being spent on education and I hope that we will retain that and have a real terms increase on top.

Alan Johnson: The reference to liberals certainly created a stir on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about 75 per cent. achievement in three subjects at key stage 2. He needs to consider the position in 1997, since when a tremendous amount of progress has been made. That is due not to politicians, educationists or civil servants, but to teachers and head teachers. They do a tremendous job.
	Much of changing the culture has to do with building aspiration, especially, as I said yesterday, among working class boys. That matter is being addressed, but with a teaching profession that is in better shape. There are more teachers and they comprise probably the best cohort of teachers that we have ever had in this country—whether they are left-wing liberals is a matter for them.

Alan Johnson: No, I will not, although I understand the balance of the arguments over Tomlinson. Tomlinson himself, of course, is now our diploma champion, to use a terrible term, with the education profession and he says that the report provided 90 per cent. of what he was looking for. I actually think it would be wrong—for parents, for pupils, for everyone—just to throw everything up in the air and get rid of the A-level, which has been our gold standard since the early 1950s, when we have this opportunity for children to follow such diverse routes. They can go down the GCSE, the A-level, the international baccalaureate or the diploma routes.
	Incidentally, while I have the opportunity to say so, I was giving an honest answer to an honest question. I said that diplomas are so difficult and radical that they could go badly wrong. Short of saying that introducing these diplomas will be a breeze, we have to acknowledge that it could go wrong, but we are determined that it will not, which is why we are putting considerable resources and effort into ensuring that this most radical change takes off and becomes the success that we all hope it will be.

John Hayes: Seventy per cent. of the 2020 work force is over the age of 60 now, so it is vital that we upskill and reskill the adult population. Yet adult education is being savagely cut—it is down 10 per cent. in the past year and below its 1997 level. Not all such courses are on crochet and croquet: many of them lead to further study and work. Given that workplace training is also being cut, and that less than 6 per cent. of employers are involved in "train to gain", how have the Government managed to spend so much more on FE, but achieved so little and delivered so much less?

Bill Rammell: I will happily meet my hon. Friend, as I have met many colleagues, to discuss the issue. Let me make it clear that we are not reversing the fundamental thrust of our policy on the issue. The current trajectory is simply not sustainable, and will impact on the budget for other skills for life provision unless we make changes. Under the changes, over 50 per cent.—indeed, over 80 per cent., as I understand it, in the college to which my hon. Friend referred—will continue to get access to free ESOL. As a result of the representations made, we are considering a number of other indicators to ensure that we properly assess low income and that those who genuinely cannot afford to pay continue to get free ESOL.

Iain Duncan Smith: I completely support all that goes on with regard to apprenticeship schemes for those aged 16 and above, but I wish to draw the Secretary of State's attention to something that is still a big problem in this country: how to tie-in young boys aged about 12 and upwards who do not believe that academic routes are the routes for them but who find that schools so specialise in academic subjects that they are left out—so they truant or leave school early. That is one of the major issues that we have found as we go around communities.
	I ask the Secretary of State to visit Holland, if he has not already done so. I deeply admire the Dutch for embedding their vocational training in schools, and their truancy levels are much lower than ours. A Dutch educationalist said to me that the difference between them and the United Kingdom is that they are just as intelligent, computer-literate and educated, but they also believe that people have to build the houses that they live in, carry out the plumbing work and do the wiring as well, and that they celebrate that rather than make it a second-class occupation.

Jim Knight: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in those matters, and that she has met with my noble Friend Lord Adonis and senior officials to make sure that we spend well the £181 million that we have committed to secondary schooling in Stoke. I will, of course, be happy to meet her and to make sure that senior officials are working with her to ensure that we are investing that £181 million on the basis of having quality rather than mediocrity.

David Willetts: Is there not an enormous gap between what the Minister has just told the House and what his Department published in its document "Building Schools for the Future", which said that in 2007, 100 school buildings would open and, in 2008, 200 school buildings would open? Will he confirm that those figures should be five school buildings in 2007 and 23 in 2008? Will he give the House an explanation for that extraordinary delay and an authoritative time scale against which we can judge the Government's performance in the future?

Jim Knight: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on that very issue and was extensively questioned on it. We look forward to the Committee's report. Building schools for the future is a major project on an unprecedented scale and we deliberately started in the most difficult areas, because those are the ones that need the investment the most. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and we have to ensure that we get the quality right.
	If, as in Stoke-on-Trent, we occasionally need to reassess the initial plans, in order to improve them, and therefore it takes a little bit longer to get them right, that is what we will do. However, 25 authorities have joined up or have completed procurement. Most of the wave 1 projects that have not yet signed up are near to financial close, with more than 50 more schools opening in the next two years.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Solicitor-General share my concern at the growing antisocial behaviour in market towns such as Thirsk and the fact that few prosecutions are taken, especially in cases of the breach of an order or contract under the new antisocial behaviour regulations? Does he agree that rather than seek to prosecute, it would be better to intervene to take the children off the street earlier? What are the Government doing to stop truancy in schools, which can lead to antisocial behaviour? Why are there no prosecutions of those contracts and what value do they have in the circumstances?

Mike O'Brien: Intensive supervision has been shown to have considerable merits in dealing with particular individuals who need that level of interventions. We are likely to see increasing use of that measure. The response by the criminal justice system to antisocial behaviour by young people will increasingly be directed to dealing with particular problems that they have. The more that we can tailor the intervention by the criminal justice system to the particular problems that individuals have, to divert them away from activities that cause difficulties, the better will be our opportunities to reduce the amount of antisocial behaviour.

Mike O'Brien: The straight answer is yes. A number of reviews are being carried out on the role of expert witnesses and some have already been published. There have also been several initiatives recently to improve the use of expert witnesses in criminal cases.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the judicial system, in particular the Crown Prosecution Service, has a duty of care to ensure that expert witnesses are who they say they are? If so, what are his comments in the light of the recent bogus Dr. Morrison case, which has led to the need to review more than 700 cases? Many people may be in prison as a result of his so-called expert witness, so what new measures will the Government put in place to ensure that expert witnesses have the qualifications they claim to have?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Gene Morrison case is of serious concern. The police investigation into any miscarriages of justice is under way and my office is being kept informed about it. I think that case was exceptional, but it is one that underlines the importance to all parties of ensuring that they look critically at the evidence of expert opinion. A number of reforms are being made. New criminal justice procedure rules put in place last November are now coming into play; the post of forensic science regulator has been set up; and the Attorney-General's review of shaken baby syndrome cases is under way and will have important recommendations. In accord with the view of the Court of Appeal—the recommendations of his honour Sir Igor Judge—new CPS guidance on the use of expert evidence will ensure that, whereas expert evidence has been wholly relied on in the past, it should not be in the future and that corroborative evidence, which is independent of the experts, should be sought. That new approach will help to deal with some of the problems with expert evidence we have experienced in a number of cases in recent years.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right; there is considerable expenditure in relation to expert witnesses. We need to ensure that cases are properly decided and experts able to give their view, but that it is done in a sensible and cost-effective way. Following the recommendations, part of the guidance on expert witnesses is that they should be prepared to have peer review of their findings and that there should be exchanges between experts on either side of the case about the evidence they bring forward. We should attempt to ensure that, where possible, there is as much consensus as possible about the expert evidence that goes before a court and a jury. In that way, it is to be hoped that we will reduce the amount of time needed for expert witness evidence in court cases.

Mike O'Brien: It is the case that we need to ensure that court proceedings are speeded up more generally, not just in relation to experts. When we came into office it was clear that the courts system was struggling and unable to cope with the sheer volume of cases before the courts. Things have improved, but there is still a lot more work to be done. There are issues in relation to legal aid. We have to ensure that expert evidence is really needed before legal aid is granted and that there are proper exchanges and disclosure. The new guidance will enable the sharing of expert evidence and exchanges between experts to take place, and I hope that that approach will result in less delay in the future.

Mike O'Brien: The prosecutors' pledge introduced in October 2006 makes a series of commitments about how prosecutors communicate with victims with the aim of improving performance. At this stage, it is too early to assess the full impact of the pledge. The CPS has implemented management controls to seek to ensure compliance and the witness and victim experience will also provide some feedback on key elements of the pledge.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. He will know that the question was prompted by the experience of a friend of mine whose nephew was assaulted in a street in Slough. The case took more than a year to come to court and the prosecution eventually failed in part because of a lack of confirmatory identification evidence. That showed me how devastating it is for the families of the victims of violent crime not to know what is going on. Can my hon. and learned Friend assure me that the prosecutors' pledge will include better information for victims and their families while a case is being pursued and that lessons, such as that about identity parades, are learned and promulgated as a result?

Mike O'Brien: I have had a similar case in my constituency recently. In a manslaughter case the family were not properly informed. There is a need to ensure that the CPS and other agencies deal with victims and families more effectively than they have done. The prosecutors' pledge has only recently been introduced and it is about changing attitudes and behaviour and improving the way in which the criminal justice system operates by putting victims and witnesses at its heart.
	My hon. Friend has let me know of the circumstances of the case that she mentioned. There are lessons to be learned on the identification issues, but the initial charging advice was provided by a Crown prosecutor who advised the police that, given the issues in the case, there was no requirement for a video identification procedure. However, subsequently that advice had to be looked at again. Lessons must be learned when the system has failed victims or their families, and it is necessary that the prosecutors' pledge is delivered on. It is about changing and improving the whole way in which our criminal justice system operates.

Mike O'Brien: It is important that the private sector and, indeed, the public sector work much more carefully and with the police at not just seeking to catch criminals after they have committed an offence, but in seeking to prevent crime and fraud from taking place. The fraud review sets out ways in which we can get the private and public sectors to work together with the police and the other agencies in developing a strategy to tackle fraud. The national fraud strategic authority will raise awareness among the public and seek to promote best practice in fraud detection and prevention. Individual institutions need to design systems that make fraud much more difficult to commit. There is a growing body of good practice in fraud management strategies and we have encouraged the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission to look at the strength of anti-fraud controls in the organisations that they audit.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the fraud review. I hope very much that issues such as plea bargaining and better management of fraud trials can all be looked at very carefully in the course of it. However, in view of the fact that the review is taking place and that it is likely that by next week the Bill that would remove the right to trial by jury in certain fraud cases will be defeated in the House of Lords, can I urge the Solicitor-General to use the fraud review to reconsider the position of wanting to get rid of the right of trial by jury in certain fraud cases? If this fraud review is properly carried out, it will make such a measure even less necessary despite the Government's attempts at justifying it.

Mike O'Brien: The idea of a financial court needs to be looked at. We need to see how the court system as a whole would respond to that sort of proposal. On the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill, we need to have a court system that can more effectively deal with the issue of fraud. Our view remains that the Bill is something to which the Government are committed. We need to have a criminal justice system that is not only fit for purpose, but that delivers effectively. I regret the hon. Gentleman's failure to support that position. I understand his arguments, but I believe that the Bill is necessary.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business and his written statement of today on the procedural change, which will definitely be for the convenience of Members of the House.
	It has recently been discovered that Ministers have released documents relating to council tax revaluation under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that they had previously refused to release in response to parliamentary questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has raised the matter with Mr. Speaker, who is responding. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you have always been clear about Ministers' duty to Parliament. The duty is set out in the ministerial code, which says:
	"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
	Does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers have a duty to be more open with Parliament and the public?
	This week, we have seen shocking pictures of the injuries sustained by Morgan Tsvangirai while in Zimbabwean police custody. I am sure that the whole House will be disgusted by his treatment and appalled by the wider crisis in that country, which is the direct result of the policies of President Mugabe. Two weeks ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Leader of House said that there was a
	"need for a debate in Government time."—[ Official Report, 1 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1074.]
	May we now have an urgent debate in Government time on Zimbabwe?
	At the beginning of their long friendship, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor fought many battles with old Labour to build new Labour. One of those was over nuclear disarmament. In yesterday's vote to replace Trident, nearly 100 Labour Members rebelled against the Government. Indeed, one of the Chancellor's close allies, the former Deputy Leader of the House, resigned over the issue. Not for the first time, the Government would not have carried their business without the support of Conservative Members. May we thus have a debate on the dwindling authority of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor?
	Back in those good old days, the Prime Minister and Chancellor promised us that they would be "whiter than white". On 25 April, Sir Alistair Graham's term as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life comes to an end. It was the Prime Minister who decided not to renew his term, and it is the Prime Minister who has failed to appoint his successor. Sir Alistair says:
	"this Government places a low priority on the maintenance of the highest standards of conduct in public life".
	May we have a debate on the future of that committee and on why the Prime Minister sacked Sir Alistair for doing his job?
	This week, the Government published the draft Climate Change Bill, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor were playing up their green credentials. However, let us judge them by their record. Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) became Leader of the Opposition, the Chancellor had not made any major speeches on the environment. Since then, he has made three. On his watch, green taxes have fallen from 9.4 per cent. to 7.7 per cent. of his total tax take. And then there is his policy to provide home insulation: he announced it in 1995, scrapped it in 1998, and re-announced it last year. May we have a debate on the Chancellor's environmental record?
	With a Brown-Blair legacy like this, is it any surprise that Labour is turning in on itself? The Labour party is rebelling against the Prime Minister, the Cabinet is briefing against the Chancellor, and the people are turning their backs on all of them. Whenever the Prime Minister hands over to the Chancellor, is not the truth that new Labour is an old idea that has simply run its course?

Jack Straw: Let me just deal with those points in turn.
	The right hon. Lady makes a serious point about whether Ministers answering parliamentary questions should at least meet the standards set by the Freedom of Information Act. I cannot comment on the specific case that she raises because I do not know the circumstances of it. However, it is certainly the case that Ministers all strive to ensure that, at the very minimum, they are at least as forthcoming with the House in respect of the answers that they give as they would be required to be by the Freedom of Information Act. I will ensure that that is maintained. The matter is being discussed by the Procedure Committee, which is examining written questions.
	The right hon. Lady asks me about Morgan Tsvangirai. I entirely share the utter horror of all decent people throughout the world at the way in which the thugs of Robert Mugabe have sought to use the truncheon, rather than debate, to determine the future of that once-wonderful country, which has collapsed into the worst situation of almost any African country that one can think of due to the total mismanagement of Robert Mugabe. What I said two weeks ago is correct; I promise that the only issue is finding a date on which Foreign Office Ministers can be present for the debate, because they have travel plans—I know that it sounds slightly lame, but it happens to be true. I am sorry that we have not been able to find time, but we will continue to work on that.
	Thirdly, the right hon. Lady referred to our debate yesterday. I should just say that it was actually my noble Friend Lord Kinnock who resolved the issue of nuclear disarmament for us, and there was much relief that did so before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took over. It is true that the issue of nuclear disarmament and nuclear weapons has always been difficult for the Labour party. I take one view on the subject and some of my colleagues take another, but I do not think that a party should be criticised for agonising over what is unquestionably not just a defence and security issue but, in many people's eyes, an issue of conscience and morality. I draw to the right hon. Lady's attention that although the numbers involved were slightly smaller, some rather senior people in the Conservative party rebelled against their party Whip, including the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).

Jack Straw: Well, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but the point is that we are talking about a man who, only a few months ago, was shadow Foreign Secretary and deputy leader of the Conservative party, and who has taken a completely different view on the issue. If the right hon. Member for Maidenhead wants to swap stories about divisions inside parties, I suggest that she tries to pull the beam out of her own eye before she examines the mote in the eyes of others; she ought to examine what happened upstairs with regard to the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Apparently—

Jack Straw: You are right to admonish me, Mr. Speaker, and it means that I can dispatch the next two issues raised by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead very quickly. On Alistair Graham, he served his five years and we are grateful to him. I do not recall hearing similar complaints when Lord Nolan and Patrick Neill moved over to make way for their successors. On the environment and the draft Climate Change Bill, I had wondered what the Conservatives would say about that terrific Bill. The answer is that they are saying virtually nothing, but are taking an awfully long time to say it.

Jack Straw: On the issue of Health questions, I need notice of the questions and sight of the answers. However, Ministers are making every effort to ensure that accurate answers are given within the due notice time. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a huge increase in the volume of questions—they have increased by 40,000 in two or three years—which places an unacceptable burden on everyone involved. It is bound to have an overall effect on the quality of answers, which is something that the Procedure Committee is trying to resolve.
	On the medical training application service, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is under review, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced about a week ago. We are well aware of the problems that have arisen, and she has said that she will seek to tackle them. On the pension judgment, I can confirm that the Government are appealing that judgment, as we are entitled to do. The issue is not whether we were right or wrong to make the original decision, and of course, we understand the concern of pensioners who have lost part or all of their pension, and we all have constituents in that position. However, if we are to try to recompense them fully—we have already achieved partial recompense—that entails a very substantial cost to the public purse, so the issue of fairness arises.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about what the OECD said yesterday. He should be very clear that it has not reached any conclusion that the decision was incompatible with the OECD convention, and no other state has come out and said that they thought the decision was incompatible with it or that they would have reached a different decision. I have to say that I thoroughly object to the way in which the Liberal Democrat party seeks to damage the country's reputation for probity and integrity across the world.

Iain Duncan Smith: This morning, I, with many others, attended at short notice the Statutory Instrument Committee debating Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Does the Leader of the House not accept that there is something wrong with proceedings if, a week after we discussed in the House the pre-eminence of the Commons in debates, such an important matter was dealt with in a Statutory Instrument Committee, which meant it was not possible for us to debate it extensively and vote on it in the Chamber? He will say that it is a matter for Front-Bench teams but, as the champion of Back-Bench issues in the House, does he not accept that we should have an opportunity to debate those issues properly? It is possible to be in favour of the principle, but worry about its impact, and we still do not have an answer to many issues surrounding adoption and education legislation. Will the Leader of the House champion Back-Bench issues and tell his colleagues that it is time to drag this matter back to the Floor of the House and debate it properly?

David Curry: The reply from the Leader of the House on the Lyons report was perfunctory to the point of being epigrammatic. The rumour is that the report will be published on Wednesday, to be buried in the Budget. It is of great importance to millions of people, but it has been hugely delayed and, it appears, widely leaked. There is no earthly reason why it should not be published on Monday, when we are debating estate agents, or on Tuesday, so that the House has a chance to see its conclusions. If it is debated in the Budget, we should be informed. In any case, there should be a debate before the local elections, so that the parties can set out their stalls for the electorate.

Jack Straw: I understand the frustration of everyone in the House, but my right hon. Friends in the Foreign Office are as frustrated about their diary problems, as they want to ensure, too, that the matter is debated. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there are Foreign Office questions next Tuesday. May I tell her, as we have known one another for a very long time, that it is not lack of imagination that is the problem but the much more prosaic matter of finding a Minister whose diary fits both the requirements of the House and their overseas duties?

Roger Gale: May I take the Leader of the House back to his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? This morning, in Committee Room 11, at least 10 Back Benchers were denied the opportunity to speak on the sexual orientation regulations. That highly contentious piece of legislation is wholly unsuited to the form of a statutory instrument. Next week, we will deal with a statutory instrument on casinos, of all things, on the Floor of the House, yet those sexual orientation regulations will be buried. Will the Leader of the House give us a clear undertaking that they will not be put through on a vote late night, or on a deferred Division until, at the very least, the Easter Adjournment debate, so that the House can debate them on the Adjournment?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman always comes back for more. Two weeks ago he asked for a debate. I said that we could have a debate about the softness of the Liberal Democrats, who say one thing in their constituency and do another in the House. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about antisocial behaviour, he should start voting for the effective measures that we have taken against it, and he should stop supporting the criminals, rather than the victims.

Evan Harris: On the sexual orientation regulations, I associate myself with the question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and the way in which he asked it. In urging the Leader of the House to think again about a debate on the Floor of the House, I assure him that the detail of the regulations was not debated in the proceedings of the Equality Act, because there was just a regulation-making power. There was no thought about issues such as exemptions for adoption. I urge him to recognise that a debate on the Floor of the House would expose the divisions in some parties in this place and, broadly speaking, the unity among Government Members and Liberal Democrat Members in seeking to have those freedoms for lesbian and gay people.

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, it gives me the greatest pleasure to make a statement on progress towards the Olympic games and the Paralympics in 2012.
	This will be the world's greatest sporting event here in our country, but it will also act as a catalyst for the most ambitious regeneration programme in recent memory. That will include the largest new urban park in Europe for more than 150 years. There will be five new permanent sports venues and a number of temporary venues, which will be used around the UK after the games. The 1 million sq ft media centre for the games will provide in legacy a state-of-the-art business space. Four thousand homes will be converted from the village, and a further 5,000 will be provided elsewhere in the redevelopment. And there will be one of the largest shopping centres in Europe, which will involve an estimated £7 billion private sector investment. That money has been invested because we won the Olympic games.
	Across the country, the games will inspire a whole generation of young people to play sport, volunteer in their communities and be proud of what their country has achieved. We chose to host the games at a site where the need was greatest and where the benefits would be most keenly felt. We chose east London, because of the challenge to regenerate one of the most deprived areas not only in the UK, but in the whole of Europe. The site of the Olympic park needs remediation before construction work can even begin. That work is well under way. Essential utilities for the area need to be installed. That work is also well under way.
	Developing the Olympic village requires the largest number of homes ever to be built in one place, at one time in this country. The planning for that work is on schedule. As the National Audit Office report in January set out, when we bid for the games, we estimated the cost of the Olympic park, infrastructure and an element for community and elite sport at around £3 billion, plus an additional £1 billion as part of the wider lower Lea valley Olympic regeneration. This made the total cost of preparing for the games and Olympic regeneration just over £4 billion. Those costs were net of tax and of wider security costs.
	I made it clear to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 15 May 2005, which was before we won, that if we were successful, I would institute a detailed review of costs. That review began in early autumn 2005, after we had won the bid. The budget for every venue, every bridge and every facility on the park has been scrutinised. The Olympic Delivery Authority's private sector delivery partner, CLM, has unrivalled expertise in advising five Olympic cities on their plans. CLM has made a detailed study of the site and all the attendant risks inherent in a project of this magnitude and tight time scale. The site master plan has been amended to avoid potential costs in the region of £600 million. However, other costs have been judged to have increased, as I set out for the Select Committee in November, resulting in a net increase of £900 million.
	We will now set a budget for the ODA, the body established to manage the delivery of all the structural and regeneration elements of the games, and I can today confirm what the budget will be. The ODA will be given a budget to cover the construction costs as a whole of up to £5.3 billion up to 2012. That comprises £3.1 billion for building the Olympic park and venues—the core Olympic costs—£1.7 billion for Olympic infrastructure and regeneration linking the park to the rest of the lower Lea valley and a £500 million allowance for programme contingency, which represents 12 per cent. of the total programme contingency that has been allowed. I am placing a summary of the ODA 2007-08 business plan in the Library today as well as details of this investment.
	Those costs, as in the 2004 bid, are net of tax. The ODA will pay tax, but the cost at around £840 million will be covered in full by the Government contribution. I can assure the House that the tax treatment of the ODA will have no impact on other funders. The Government have also decided that as the funder of last resort, it is prudent that a programme contingency should be held within Government under very tight conditions. This will be drawn on should the need be demonstrated, so as to ensure that the timetable is met and that quality is maintained. The level of contingency is £2.7 billion, of which, as I have said, £500 million will form part of the base budget of the ODA. Within that overall budget, we have also allocated a figure of £600 million for wider security, which is on top of the ODA budget for site security. This £600 million figure has fluctuated as assessments have changed and will obviously be subject to continued oversight and scrutiny in the coming months and years by the relevant Cabinet Committee, the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police.
	Lastly, as we announced at the time of the bid, around £390 million will be invested in non-ODA provision, including in sport—for example, community coaches—and in the Paralympics. That figure was included in the public sector funding package, but it is not part of the ODA budget.
	Let me turn now to how the budget will be funded. At the time of our Olympic bid, the lottery and the London contribution was estimated at £2.4 billion, and as I told the House on 2 February 2006, the Government will contribute a further £1 billion as part of our commitment to Olympic regeneration.
	I can announce today that central Government provision will be £6 billion. This comprises the £1 billion already committed for Olympic regeneration, the funding of the tax bill, broader regeneration, infrastructure within the park, wider security and programme contingency. Without any further increase for London council tax payers beyond that already committed, or any increase in transport fares to fund the Olympics, the Mayor will over the lifetime of the Olympic programme be making a further £300 million available to help meet Olympic costs.
	The lottery will make a further contribution of £675 million. This will mean a total contribution of £2.2 billion from the lottery, which is 20 per cent. of lottery income for good causes from 2005, when the Olympic lottery started, to 2012-13. In addition to the £410 million already confirmed, which will be shared according to the normal lottery shares, I propose to transfer after 2009 £425 million from the Big Lottery Fund and £250 million from the other good causes. No transfer will be made from UK Sport, which is responsible for preparing our sportsmen and women for the Beijing Olympics and the London Olympics in 2012. The decision to take a further share from the lottery has been taken only after very careful consideration, and implementation will take place only after full consultation about the implications with the lottery distributors and the other stakeholders.
	The original memorandum of understanding made it clear that should we win the games, we would call on the lottery to help fund them. I believe that that principle is widely accepted. However, I am determined to ensure that this temporary diversion from the existing good causes to the Olympic good cause is done with the least possible disruption. I will continue to consult the lottery distributors about how best this can be done, but I assure the House that it is the Government's intention that no existing lottery projects need be affected. We have also agreed with the Big Lottery Fund that resources for the voluntary sector will be protected and will, as it expects, continue to receive the £2 billion from the Big Lottery Fund between now and 2012. The decision on the lottery will be subject an affirmative resolution in both Houses in due course.
	London 2012 will bring financial gain to London and, indeed, across the country. For example, land values in the Olympic park are expected to increase considerably as a result of the investment that we are making. In my view, it is only fair that the lottery good causes, having contributed to the Olympics, should share in any such windfall. The Mayor of London and I have agreed that we will rewrite our memorandum of understanding and put in place profit-sharing arrangements to enable the lottery and future regeneration needs of the local area to benefit from the returns on the investment that we are making in the Olympic park.
	As I told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the NAO has agreed to work closely with us in scrutinising the budget from now on, and the team overseeing the project in the ODA has a world-class reputation. This makes generous funding provision for the project as a whole, of which £3.1 billion is the core Olympic cost, net of tax and contingency.
	Only a fortnight ago, the International Olympic Committee said that it was "assured and impressed" by the work under way after its visit to London. The announcement that we make today means that it is full steam ahead for 2012. The London Olympics will change Britain for the better for ever. The fact of hosting the Olympic games is already changing lives and communities and building ambition. I commend that, and this statement, to the House.

Hugh Robertson: Secondly, as a consequence, in raiding the lottery for a further £675 million to make up the shortfall, the Government will penalise precisely the clubs and small organisations throughout the country that were supposed to benefit from the Olympics.
	Thirdly, as the Secretary of State has given us only the main column headings, we do not yet have the full, open and transparent budget that was necessary to restore confidence in the financing of London 2012.
	As time is short, I should like to ask the Secretary of State five questions. The first concerns disclosure. As a result of information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we now know that KPMG identified serious risks to the Olympic budget as early as October 2005, yet a month later the Secretary of State was still assuring the House:
	"we believe that our budget is sound."—[ Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1224.]
	The Minister for Sport assured the House—Members will enjoy this—
	"I shall never forget the person who said, 'Do not underestimate the budget. If you have to go higher, it will be seen as a failure so make sure your calculations are realistic.'"—[ Official Report, 21 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1505.]
	The Bill did not leave Parliament until March 2006—a clear six months after KPMG had first raised concerns. My first question for the Secretary of State is therefore this: when were she and the Treasury first aware of concerns that the original budget was not deliverable, and why did not she share those concerns with Parliament?
	Secondly, on contingency, the requirement to add whole project contingency to the individual project contingency already built into the bid has added, as the Secretary of State told us, £2.7 billion to the Olympic budget. Why did the Treasury and the Chancellor fail to identify that cost when they signed off the original budget?
	Thirdly, on tax, given that we lifted our structures directly from Sydney, where no VAT was payable, and that VAT was not payable for the Manchester Commonwealth games, why did the Treasury and the Chancellor sign off the bid budget, without VAT, before adding, as the Secretary of State announced, a further £840 million to the budget? Can she assure the House that this is, indeed, simply a case of transferring balances and that no tax money will actually be collected?
	Fourthly, on the private sector contribution, the NAO report highlighted the fact that £738 million was to come from the private sector in order to reduce the need for public funds—and is, presumably, still part of the new budget announced today. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has so far refused to answer any parliamentary written questions on this issue, always merely saying that it will let me have a reply in due course. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain to the House how that figure was reached, and will she confirm that it is still robust? If it is not, further public money will clearly be required to fill that additional shortfall.
	Finally, on the lottery, the Secretary of State announced that she will raid the national lottery for a further £675 million to pay for the Olympics. Despite the fact that
	"enabling young people through sport"
	was one of the key elements of the bid, the element of funding for sport that comes through the lottery has now been cut from the 25 per cent. that was originally proposed when the lottery was set up to about half under today's proposals—a point consistently made by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. Can she confirm exactly what percentage sport—and, indeed, heritage, the arts and the Big Lottery Fund—will get under these new proposals, and, crucially, what assessment she has made of the financial impact of this in each and every constituency throughout the country?
	Many Members in this House supported the Olympics and support them still. My party is among them. However, this statement confirms that the cost has almost trebled in the year since the Bill left Parliament and that the lottery will bear an extra £675 million shortfall. One of the key drivers for that is that the Treasury and the Chancellor signed off the original budget but failed to allow for VAT, at £840 million, or for contingency, at £2.7 billion, which they have now added to the bill.
	The key thing now is for the Government to put a full, open and transparent budget in the public domain so that everybody knows who is paying for what, and when, and then to stick to it. That will do more than anything else to restore public confidence in the London 2012 Olympics. If they do not do that, I fear that the Secretary of State, or her successor, will be standing in front of us a year from now to admit that costs have risen further.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman must work harder to persuade not only the House but the country that the Opposition are behind the Olympics instead of taking every opportunity to undermine the excellent work that is being undertaken not only in London but throughout the country to support the games.
	Let me deal with the specific questions. As I took care to set out in my statement, I have referred at every stage—before and after we won the bid—to the cost review that is under way. The hon. Gentleman must understand the scale and complexity of reviewing not only the time scales for but the contractual expectations and other management aspects of every single project. That is why we have a world-class delivery partner, which has undertaken that work for us. Similarly, I signalled that the cost review, which was begun almost immediately after we won the bid, would be necessary before we became the host city.
	On the prudence of a programme contingency, VAT and other provision that the Government are making, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the clear distinction between the budget for the ODA, which I set out today—the money we expect it to spend—and the funding provision to safeguard the project against any as yet unforeseen risks. That is a clear distinction.
	There is a specific reason for Manchester's exemption from VAT. The Commonwealth games operated on a host city basis and local authorities are exempt from paying VAT.
	We have now allowed for private sector contribution in the budget, but on a pessimistic basis against the full expectation of what might be raised from that sector. Negotiations are under way all the time with different private sector partners, so it is possible, but not certain, that that may change. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about private sector investment in the Olympic park, I refer him to the confidence that Westfield has shown in investing in the largest retail park at Stratford city and residential development because of the Olympic games.
	Let me deal with the point about raiding the lottery. Such criticism is hard to take from an Opposition who made a manifesto commitment to wind up the Big Lottery Fund, which they are now defending, and conduct some sort of moral audit of grants that it made. Nothing has done more to galvanise sport and ambition among young people in this country than the prospect of London hosting the Olympic games. We are guardians of that ambition. Despite the knocks from the Opposition, we shall continue to be so.

Tessa Jowell: That is a rant worthy of Victor Meldrew that does not take us any further on. If one believes everything that is written in the papers—the work of our dear friends the journalists who watch our work—rather than working through the solutions to difficult problems, I suppose one feels that one can justify such a rant. I have always invited the Opposition parties to be part of the plans to develop the games and to champion them and young people's ambitions. Yet they default at every turn to a position of point scoring, party-political advantage, allegation and slur. The Olympics will be legacy games. One can build temporary structures in any part of any city and host Olympic games. The games that we host will create a legacy in one of the poorest parts of our country. My Labour colleagues and I celebrate that as an expression of why we are in politics.

Kate Hoey: May I caution the Secretary of State not to treat every question that raises an important issue as meaning that people oppose the Olympic games?
	Will she give a commitment that not one single grassroots sports project in constituencies will be cut as a result of the move from lottery money at grassroots? What will happen if the public suddenly change their mind and stop buying or buy fewer lottery tickets?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A question can be implied from what the hon. Member has already said.

Phyllis Starkey: A key aspect of the legacy is that it will bring into beneficial use a huge area of land in east London that is very close to the City, but has hitherto not been able to be used because of its highly contaminated nature. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State mention profit sharing in relation to the added value of the site. Does she intend to return to the House with more details of those profit-sharing arrangements? If not, will she ensure that there is another opportunity to examine how the profit will be shared between regeneration projects and returns to the lottery fund?

Mark Pritchard: May I make the Secretary of State an offer which I hope she will not refuse, and which may even cheer her up? Would she like to come to the midlands with me this weekend? If she does, she will see that construction there is delivered at about 25 per cent. of the cost of construction in London. If this really were a national rather a London Olympics event, there would be far more building in the regions, which would solve with some of the problems that the Secretary of State faces today.

Jack Straw: With permission, I shall make a statement about the report of the review of party funding by Sir Hayden Phillips entitled "Strengthening Democracy: Fair and Sustainable Funding of Political Parties", published earlier this morning. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.
	In a written ministerial statement this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thanked Sir Hayden, on behalf of the Government, for his hard work over the past 12 months. In the course of his review, Sir Hayden received submissions and held discussions with representatives of all the major political parties, as well as consulting the public, the Electoral Commission and various academic experts.
	Sir Hayden's report identifies important principles that could form the basis of a lasting settlement of the party funding system. However, as Sir Hayden himself concedes, a number of practicalities remain to be worked out and will require further discussion between the parties. We will play a full and constructive part in those talks.
	The issue of party political finance and spending is central to the debate about the health of our democracy. There is a keen public interest in securing lasting reform in a way that curbs wasteful spending, does not gratuitously advantage one party at the expense of others, and does not interfere in the internal structures of any political party.
	If the various political parties can agree on a reform package that meets those objectives, we will have a funding regime that will increase public confidence in the probity of the democratic process and help stimulate grass-roots renewal of our parties.
	The most compelling need identified by Sir Hayden is the need to end the political spending "arms race", which has seen expenditure spiral upwards even as party memberships have declined. In the 1997 to 2001 Parliament, the Government, with all-party support, sought to tackle the problem of excessive spending with what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Act reflected key recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Patrick Neill QC. It introduced a national limit on campaign expenditure, created the Electoral Commission, and made the funding system more transparent by requiring that all donations above £5,000 nationally and £1,000 locally be made public.
	We all believed that through the introduction of those limits and that transparency, public confidence in the system could be assured; but the recent revelations about unpublicised loans to parties by individuals, resulting from a loophole in the 2000 Act, have clouded that transparency. In addition, the line between local and national spending has become blurred by developments such as political campaigning facilitated by the internet, and other advances in telecommunications. As a consequence, a modest relaxation of spending controls in the 2000 Act at local level has been exploited to an extent far beyond what was intended in the legislation.
	Sir Hayden draws attention to the fact that spending by the two main parties in the 12 months before the last general election—in 2005—rose to £90 million, up nearly 40 per cent. on the £65 million spent during a similar period in 2000-01. He must be right to say that the 2000 Act
	"sought to control the level of spending, but it has proved inadequate to the challenge".
	The immediate problem of transparency in relation to party loans has been resolved by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which requires that loans be publicly declared in the same way as donations. However, in his report Sir Hayden advances proposals for further reform. Crucially, he shows support for the principle of continuous spending limits at local and national level. He also proposes tighter controls on third-party expenditure, and a reformed Electoral Commission with the power, capacity and practical experience to perform its role as an effective regulator.
	The importance of effective spending limits cannot be overstated. As the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs observed in its report "Party Funding", published in December last year, the United States offers an instructive example of what can happen when political spending is left unchecked. The Committee said that in 1976, the total cost of all United States elections was $40 million. By 2004, the cost of federal elections alone had risen to $3.9 billion, 97 times higher.
	Sir Hayden also recommends the introduction of caps on donations. All three main parties agree in principle that there should be some form of donation cap. The Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended a voluntary arrangement. We believe that that would work, providing enough flexibility for the different structures and traditions of the various parties to be respected.
	Sir Hayden offers welcome backing for the judgment of the Constitutional Affairs Committee that
	"any move to change the nature of party funding must not stray into prescriptive devices to require political parties to organise internally in ways that violate their democratic relationships with other institutions".
	Finally, Sir Hayden recommends the introduction of a higher level of state funding for political parties. The Constitutional Affairs Committee reached a similar conclusion, but recognised the need for further debate about the values and principles that should govern such funding. As a 1976 report on party funding—by a committee chaired by the then Douglas Houghton—showed, there has long been a degree of state funding in United Kingdom politics. All political parties have the opportunity to claim free television and radio broadcast slots, along with free postage. Since the 1970s, the provision of Short money and Cranborne money has given millions of pounds of state aid to the main Opposition parties. That funding has increased more than threefold since 1997. In 2006, the total amount of Short money was £6.3 million, with more than £4 million being paid to the main Opposition party.
	The Neill committee noted in its 1998 report that the arguments for and against state funding were "finely balanced". Although Neill did not recommend a major extension, his committee concluded:
	"We can envisage circumstances in which substantially increased state funding of the political parties—including the funding of their general activities—might become imperative."
	Sir Hayden concludes that those circumstances now exist, and he has put forward proposals for increased state funding based on electoral support and the recruitment of members.
	Our democracy could not function without the organisation of political parties of all political shades and opinions, and the platforms for debate and the exploration of ideas which the political parties provide. Their work, and in particular the work of party foot soldiers who devote time and energy to their cause, is fundamental to the health of the democratic process.
	In order for them to command high levels of public support, the funding arrangements for political parties must be fair and transparent. Through earlier legislation, Parliament has taken significant steps to put such a system in place. Sir Hayden Phillips' report has identified areas for further reform and some key principles. The task now for the political parties is to work on the practical arrangements of achieving a fairer, more sustainable and more transparent funding regime. The public would expect nothing less.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving me advance sight of his statement.
	We welcome the publication of Sir Hayden Phillips' report. We accept his main recommendations. We want to have cleaner and cheaper politics, and we want to work with the other parties to achieve that goal. However, if cleaner and cheaper politics is the goal, we start a long way from that point. The cash for peerages scandal has pushed the public's estimation of politicians to a new low. This issue is not just about our vanity, and nor is it just a joke that can be easily written off. Public cynicism about our political process is deeply damaging to our democracy, so will the Leader of the House agree to hold cross-party talks on Sir Hayden's recommendations as soon as possible?
	There is much to welcome in Sir Hayden's report. We support the moves towards a long-term cap on donations to political parties and a reduction in the general election campaigning cap, and we are happy to discuss spending caps on all year round non-election campaigning and proposals for tighter controls on third-party expenditure, greater transparency on donations, such as those by unincorporated associations, and new powers for the Electoral Commission. Does the Leader of the House share our support for those proposals?
	Sir Hayden suggests that it might be desirable to control local campaign spending outside election times, but he rightly notes the difficulties in putting that into practice, such as the variance of constituency boundaries according to the type of election, the practice of targeting marginal constituencies which is inevitable in our electoral system, and the fact that local party officers tend to be volunteers. Despite our scepticism about the need for local limits, in order to secure agreement we are prepared to consider them, but subject to one condition: that any caps imposed at local level do not entrench incumbency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to that?
	It has long been the position of the Conservative party that in order to restore public trust we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions. I am glad that Sir Hayden has reached the same conclusion. Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden's proposal that caps on donations should apply across the board—to individuals, businesses and trade unions?
	Sir Hayden's report suggests that, despite the cap on donations, trade union affiliation fees could count as individual donations on the condition that
	"it is possible to trace payments back to identifiable individuals".
	Does the Leader of the House agree that any such system must be free from abuse? Does he agree that if affiliation fees are to count as individual donations it is imperative that individual trade union members are able each year to opt in to political funds, rather than being left to opt out, as is currently the case? Given that more than half of all union members who pay affiliation fees do not vote Labour, should not members who opt in to political funds be able to choose annually to which party their fees should go?
	These are very important questions because it is, of course, Labour's financial links to the trade unions that have prevented reform until now.  [Interruption.] The party's national executive committee recently pledged to "vigorously oppose plans" for an across-the-board cap on donations, saying that
	"the Labour Party cannot accept a statutory uniform donation cap...It would also undermine the Labour Party federal structure and seek to amend a system of Trade Union contributions".
	However, as Sir Hayden says,
	"a limit on donations need not...challenge the Party's constitutional relationship with the trade unions".
	Does the Leader of the House agree with Sir Hayden? Three quarters of Labour's donations—some £8.5 million per year—come from the unions, and there is another £8 million per year in affiliation fees. Is it not the Labour party's constitutional relationship with the unions that is threatened by funding reform, and what it is particularly worried about is its financial relationship with the unions?
	Sir Hayden is clear that there should be no new state funding of political parties until an agreement is reached on all aspects of reform. We agree. There should not be a single extra penny of state funding until there is a cap on all donations from individuals, companies and trade unions. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be no more state funding until that is the case? Does he also agree that any new state funding must promote democratic engagement? As the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Constitutional Affairs Committee have each concluded, that could be done through tax relief on small donations and matched funding for non-taxpayers.
	We need to reform party funding if we are to get cleaner and cheaper politics, and we need cross-party consensus if we are to reform party funding. Sir Hayden's report, published today, is a very good starting point for cross-party talks. The principal block to reform remains the Labour Party's relationship with the trade unions. This Government came to power promising to reform party funding to end sleaze. I am sure that in new Labour's old days the Prime Minister and Chancellor would have wanted to be bold by ending the unions' financial grip on their party. That is the key to achieving consensus on party funding, so will the Leader of the House now accept that challenge?

Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response to this issue. I think that he has answered his own question about whether anything can be agreed until everything is agreed. In the end, this House and the other place have to make decisions, and he described the process appropriately: no party should have a veto on sensible reforms that are likely to carry public support, but at the same time the discussions and any agreement that can be reached have to take account of the legitimate interests of all the parties. That is an important point for the Conservative party to bear in mind.
	I say to the Conservatives seriously that they need to reflect on the point that I made earlier, which is that they have never introduced any changes in the financing regime that have adversely affected them. They have sought to change the regime that affects us, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was at it again today. She was trying to return to the opt-in arrangements in the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. Not even Margaret Thatcher tried that on. Of course there has to be a level playing field, but that requires effective spending and donation limits. I concede that the Liberal Democrats have been consistent about the issue.
	It is worth pointing out that when the Liberal Democrats advanced the proposal for donation limits in 2000, I said from this Front Bench that I did not think that they were necessary—so did the Conservative party. Indeed, that remained the official position of the Conservative party until very recently, because in November 2005 the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who was a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman at the time, said in a debate on the issue that the argument about caps on donations was
	"a sideshow in the debate."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 17WH.]
	It is worth reflecting on how much the Opposition have had to move, because until recently they thought that donation caps were a sideshow and spending limits were not the issue. We look forward to movement on their part. Discussions must take place on what Sir Hayden says, not on the basis of a partisan interpretation of what he does not say.
	My last point on the issue of trade unions is that there may have been a public perception about trade union funding, but it was completely dispersed by changes introduced both in legislation and by us. All opinion poll evidence shows almost zero concern about trade union spending, because it is the most transparent arrangement. Interestingly, the Better Regulation Task Force said that there is too much regulation of trade unions in that respect, not too little, and the assiduous certification officer said that there have been three complaints—only three—about the operation of the levy since 2000. Two of them were withdrawn and one rejected.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he agree that the central issue the electorate expect us to deal with is the question of both national and local spending limits? That is the driver of dodgy practices such as the Midlands Industrial Council, which we have come to know only too well, and the dining clubs in the House of Commons. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the basic reality is that the role of trade unions in relation to donations has been transparent and open? It is there for people to see. We can always put our record in comparison with that of the Conservative party—ours is one of honour.

Alan Beith: May I welcome Sir Hayden's report and the fact that it follows closely the lines of the Select Committee's report? Does the Leader of the House recognise that the Committee believe unanimously that there should be voluntarily agreed binding limits on all large donations, whether individual, corporate or trade union, and a cap on all party spending, including spending outside the election period, as a precondition for more state funding? Does he realise that all the parties will have to move on from past positions? We found it was possible to do so when we saw how successfully Canadian parties had adapted to quite fundamental change that still enabled them to preserve their trade union links or their ability to engage with the electorate. Surely, the taxpayer cannot be asked to pay the parties more money unless they carry out reforms to remove large paymasters.

Andrew Tyrie: I thought the statement of the Leader of the House was not in the real world when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no longer any public concern about trade unions. The trade unions are about to have a large say in the appointment of the next Prime Minister, and they will almost certainly be the main, if not the only, funder of the Labour party at the next general election. Will the Leader of the House answer a specific question that he did not answer when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked if he agreed with Sir Hayden's conclusion that
	"a limit on trade union donations"
	and affiliation fees
	"need not...challenge the party's constitutional relationship with the trade unions"?

Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Hayden Phillips was given that job in the aftermath of cash for peerages, starting with the Tories way back in at least 2001—as far as we know—and then encroached on by us, the Labour party? Will he also confirm that when deciding on Hayden Phillips to do that job there was not reference at any time to examining the trade union movement? Is not it ironic that despite all the big business money, and the Swiss roll-over for the Liberal Democrats, we find ourselves here in the House discussing a report from Hayden Phillips about clean money from the trade union movement that is balloted for every few years, while the Tories and the rest want to imagine that big business has played no role whatever? There should be no cap on the trade unions, the cap should be on the spending. In terms of equality, we should decide on a national spending cap of about £10 million—equivalent to the amount a party would spend in every constituency it contests—

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend's recollection of the history of the establishment of the Hayden Phillips inquiry is entirely right; at the time, there was not a single mention of problems with the trade unions, because there is no problem with the way that trade unions have been making contributions towards the Labour party. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) asked me about the matter when I gave evidence to the Select Committee and I invited him to provide even a sheet of evidence that suggested any concern that the current, highly transparent, highly regulated system in respect of trade unions was operating inappropriately. None was forthcoming. The Conservative party has been unable to produce such evidence; nobody has been able to produce it. The Department for Constitutional Affairs cannot and neither—as I confirmed to the Select Committee—has the Electoral Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is entirely right to say that what the Conservative party are trying to do is on the one hand say, "Yes, we'll take part in talks", while on the other trying to shift the issue in a rather blatant and obvious way from the real problem, which is the over-reliance by all three parties on single, large donors, with the inappropriate and completely opaque influence that can bring, to trying to suggest that the trade unions are the bogey. I am afraid that is the old Conservative approach, and they will have to wrest themselves away from it if they want consensus in the talks.

Andrew MacKay: The Leader of the House in rightly commending the review said that the conclusions would be underpinned by the creation of a level playing field to which we would all agree, so may I ask him to turn to local funding? By allowing all of us to have up to £10,000 extra a year as a communication allowance and allowing some of our incidental expenses to go towards campaigning effectively in the constituency, do not we put those who are not incumbent at a disadvantage? When he reaches the conclusion of his all-party discussions, it must be right that other parties in a constituency can spend the same amount as the incumbent Member.

Jack Straw: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a debate on the recommendation of the House of Commons Commission in respect of the communications allowance. As he will see when the report is put forward, that is about communicating in respect of our parliamentary duties and it actually proposes tightening up considerably the way in which the existing incidental expenses provision is currently used and restricting the amount that can be spent on franked envelopes from no limit at the moment to one that Mr. Speaker will set at £7,000. Yes, some additional funding will be provided for communication by Members of Parliament and all the evidence suggests—and it is not a party issue at all—that that is necessary if we are better to inform our electorates. However, that will take place in more strictly controlled circumstances.
	I do not want this issue to be thrown across the Chamber but if we are talking about the amount of money that is spent locally, it has to be said that even the communications allowance will pale into insignificance compared with the amount that Lord Ashcroft is already spending and spent at the last election. He made a significant speech the other day in the other place in which he set his face against any idea of spending limits, and said that parties want to spend whatever they can. He reinforced that view in an aptly entitled book on the 2005 elections called "Dirty politics, Dirty times".

Chris Mullin: There is a great deal to welcome in Hayden Phillips report. I agree with my right hon. Friend that what most damages the public perception of British politics is the suggestion that the main political parties to a greater or lesser extent are in hock to a handful of extremely wealthy individuals. As regards the political levy, does he agree that 3 million to 4 million people paying £3 or £4 voluntarily a year is the nearest thing that we have to mass politics in this country and that we ought not to throw it away lightly?

Jack Straw: I agree with both my hon. Friend's propositions. On the political levy, I want to say that the proportion of members of trade unions that are affiliated to the Labour party and who pay their political levy varies. It was 80 per cent. a few years; it is currently 90 per cent. The number of individual trade unionists who pay varies and there is a change year on year. What that shows is that trade union members are well aware of the fact that if they pay the political levy and their trade union is affiliated to the Labour party, part of the money—part only—will go to the Labour party. It is transparent and highly regulated in a way that much else of the current political funding regime is not.

George Young: Has not Hayden Phillips done an heroic job in narrowing the gap that existed between the parties a year ago and in setting out some general principles on which we should all agree? However, there is still a gap that we need to address. Of course, Opposition Members should listen to the legitimate concerns expressed by Labour Members, and some of them have been aired in this exchange. However, can the Leader of the House for the third time try to answer a question that has been put to him, namely whether he agrees that a limit on donations from trade unions
	"need not challenge...the Party's constitutional relationship with the trade unions"?
	Is his party interested in pursuing what, on page 10 of the report, Sir Hayden regards as a "reasonable outcome"?

Jack Straw: I thought that I had answered the question, and I apologise if I have not. Of course, the limit need not challenge the relationship—some suggestions are set out on page 10—but that depends not just on us but on the Conservative party. This is not a symmetrical issue. The Conservative party has issues with us and we have issues, as it were, in the other direction.  [ Interruption. ] I am trying to be helpful if the right hon. Member for Maidenhead will stop muttering.
	I understand any Opposition party's concern about incumbency and I obviously appreciate the fact that under our system—indeed, under virtually any system that we can think of—elections are fought out in marginal seats. Sir Hayden understands that and he has come forward with suggestions that try to take account of the fact that, as we all know, in safe seats the level of expenditure both at an election and well before it is very different from that in marginal seats. If there are to be limits, however flexible they are, they have to apply everywhere.

Tony Wright: Sir Hayden Phillips was given the impossible task of seeking consensus where no consensus exists and he has performed that task heroically. He now says that we have to move on to further inter-party talks to resolve the real issues at stake. However, he says that that will only be accomplished satisfactorily if there is independent oversight of such talks. What is my right hon. Friend's view of that?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the written statement that he issued this morning to accompany the publication of the report has already welcomed Sir Hayden's offer that he might chair those further discussions. We will discuss the modalities of the discussions; none of us wants to waste Sir Hayden's time. My feeling is that we will probably wish to see some staff work and work by the three parties directly, as well having Sir Hayden chair some of the talks. However, I also endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that if this is going to work, no party should have a veto and all parties should take account of the legitimate interests of the other parties round the table. That is the only way forward. However, in the end, the House will have to make its own judgments.

Angus MacNeil: Sir Hayden Phillips says that the practicalities have yet to be worked out and he refers to the three main parties. I would argue that that is perhaps an oversight. If yesterday's edition of  The Times, with its headline "Nationalists set for stunning victory in May", is to be believed, the Scottish National party would become Scotland's biggest party. Given the cash-for-peerages scandal that the SNP played a modest part in exposing and the exploitation of the loopholes in the 2000 Act, we are where we are. However, with the special situation in Scotland, should the SNP not be involved? Sir Hayden has said that he wants this process to be fair and transparent, and I would put the emphasis on fairness.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself, but I note that he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, so his view makes a refreshing change. I agree with him. Many wise souls in the Conservative party as well as in our party believe that an awful lot of the money that is spent—£90 million at the last election—is wasted.
	To pick up a point that has just been raised with me, I think that there is a case for examining whether voluntarily or by regulation we ban the use of posters. As far as I can tell, the only people who benefit from the posters are those who have the poster sites. The number of so-called salients and members of public who take any notice of them has dropped. Just as we are banned from advertising on television and radio, it would be a huge relief to us and moreover to the voters if they did not have to suffer the visual pollution of posters from all three parties, particularly in marginal seats.

Jack Straw: That is one of the suggestions made by Sir Hayden and one that we must take account of in the discussions.

Frank Doran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the discussion on trade unions needs to be put in context? Since 1906, only one segment of our society has been restricted in the political donations that it can make: the trade union movement. As he has quite rightly pointed out, in 1992, that was strengthened even further. During a temporary absence from this place, I was responsible for the second round of political fund balloting for about 5 million levy payers. Does he agree that further restrictions and a further regulatory burden placed on unions would be unfair and, further, that the focus is being shifted away from where it should be: the excessive spending, particularly at a local level?

Tom Watson: Sir Hayden has now completed his task and, whether he was within his remit or not, that work is done. However, Sir Hayden does not have the monopoly on good ideas for party reform. There are other academics in the country who have come up with alternative, but similar proposals. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the work of Professor Keith Ewing and perhaps if we are taking this further to try to include other academics in our further deliberations?

Jack Straw: Sir Hayden would not suggest that he has got a monopoly on good ideas and of course we are ready to take account of any sensible suggestions.

Martin Linton: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I urge him to bring forward a Bill as soon as possible to deal with the Ashcroft loophole, if necessary ahead of the party talks? It is imperative to deal with this matter well in advance of the next election. Will he also reject the view of the Phillips report and of the official Opposition that the same donations limit should apply to individuals and organisations? Many other countries have different donations limits for individuals and organisations and it would surely be an interference in the Labour party's constitution if the measure was imposed on us. May I also—

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend has taken a long interest in this matter and moved provisions relating to donation limits in the proceedings on what became the 2000 Act. Sir Hayden makes a suggestion about the way in which the current levy paid by 3.5 million trade unionists should be treated for the purposes of any changes. On having legislation in bits, I think that, in the real world, we need to see whether we can reach agreement on a comprehensive package.

Clive Betts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the spending of tens and tens of thousands of pounds in individual constituencies for the sole purpose of electing a single candidate is a real threat to a democracy and little more than an attempt to buy votes and seats? Will he therefore give his support to Sir Hayden Phillips's recommendation for continuous spending limits at a local as well as a national level and work with the Opposition parties to try to find a way of making sure that the limits are both practical and enforceable?

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that there should be full transparency of donations? That includes fundraising front organisations, such as Conservative patrons clubs and the United and Cecil society. There should be a legal obligation on those organisations to publish accounts of who gives them money and who attends the fund-raising dinners they hold in this place.

Bill Rammell: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	I am pleased to have this opportunity today for, I hope, an informed debate about widening participation in higher education, which is rightly at the centre of the Government's efforts to expand opportunities and life chances. As Members of Parliament, many of us will have direct experience of going to university, either as students ourselves or by having a graduate in the family. Many, like me, will be first in our families to have gone to university. I grew up in a council house and went to a comprehensive school. Without having gone to university, my life would certainly not have developed in the way that it has. I certainly do not believe that I would be standing here today as Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning.
	The Government are strongly committed to ensuring that every student across all the socio-economic groups who wants a university place and has the necessary talent and commitment, can get one, so that regardless of their background or financial position, they too can experience the challenges and benefits of study in higher education. We strongly believe that that objective is critical to the continued economic success and social well-being of this country. However, that opinion is not universally accepted. We sometimes delude ourselves into believing that we have achieved a consensus on the issue in this country.
	I fear that there is still a strong body of opinion, which is most notably featured in the pages of the  Daily Mail and  The Daily Telegraph, that continues to argue against increased and widened participation in higher education. The opposition centres on the view that if more people are going to university, that, in some sense, devalues the degrees that are awarded. People say that quality will decline and that the Government will be interfering in admissions and fair access, and that, as a result, people from higher income groups or independent schools will miss out. I wholly reject the view that to validate one's educational success, one has to see others fail. Frankly, such a view has held this country back for far too long.
	Educational success should not be restricted to the privileged few. Increasing access to, and widening participation in, higher education is not in any sense about denying people from higher socio-economic groups or independent schools the chance to progress. It is, however, about helping everyone, whatever their background and circumstances, who wants an independent future through higher education to fulfil their potential.

Bill Rammell: I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman. It is not the Government's policy to present university as the only route to educational success. One of the Government's achievements over the past 10 years of which I am most proud is the tripling of the number of apprentices in this country. However, it is exceedingly difficult to get journalists and the national media interested in that issue. We need more people to be educated at all levels, and that certainly includes apprentices and people going through school, further education and, indeed, university.
	We must be clear that ensuring that people have such an opportunity is an economic and social necessity. Failure in our education system, whether through illiteracy, high drop-out rates or an unskilled work force, breeds wider failure in our society and economy. In many senses, this is a fundamental economic imperative. I strongly believe that being a global economic leader demands a skilled and educated work force that have not only the right skills, knowledge and experience, but the ability to update them in the face of phenomenally rapid change. That change is very significant.

Stephen Williams: How does that £100,000 premium, which is an average, compare with the figure that was cited in the last Parliament—before I was a Member of the House—when the Bill that became the Higher Education Act 2004 was being considered? I think that the figure cited in 2004 was about four times that amount. Does the Minister think that if the research on the premium that is available now was available then, the top-up fees Bill would have gone through?

David Howarth: One aspect of what the Minister just said was puzzling. According to Universities UK, nearly everyone with two A-levels or better goes on to higher education. The figure that he cites must thus be calculated from a low statistical base.

Bill Rammell: That demonstrates that a little research can go an awful long way towards misleading people. It is not the case that virtually everyone with two A-levels goes on to university. The figure that I am citing is robust. There is a sustainable graduate earnings premium. If hon. Members wish to try to decry that notion, they are doing a disservice to not only their argument, but the young people throughout the country whom we need to inspire to participate in higher education.
	There is an international dimension to the debate. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that there is a clear relationship between the number of graduates in the economy and increasing rates of growth in gross domestic product. Emerging economies such as India and China are developing large reserves of talent with people who are highly skilled and ready to reap the rewards of globalisation. Countries such as China and India are certainly not having navel-gazing debates about whether to expand higher education; they are just doing it. That should give us a strong pointer in the right direction. Unless we face up to the challenges that arise from the changes that are taking place around the world and do more to educate people right through the system to higher levels, we will be blown away by the global competition.
	Given the challenges that we face, what have we actually done? Increasing and widening participation in higher education is a good social policy and an invaluable economic policy. To make it a reality in this country, the Government have rightly focused on attainment, aspirations, applications, admissions and affordability, which involves delivering high-quality education to enable people to gain higher education entry qualifications; increasing people's knowledge and understanding of higher education so that they see it as a possible and realistic option; encouraging young people to apply to the institution and course that best suits their potential and ambitions; ensuring that higher education institutions are fair, transparent and professional in the way in which they make their admissions decisions; and addressing perceived financial barriers that might deter or delay young people from poorer backgrounds from going to university or college. Through pursuing those changes, we have made a real difference.
	In 1997, fewer than 82 per cent. of young UK higher education entrants came from state schools. Some 12 per cent. of higher education entrants came from neighbourhoods that were known to have a low proportion of young people in higher education. By 2004, the number of young UK higher education entrants from state schools had risen to nearly 87 per cent., with almost 14 per cent. of higher education entrants coming from neighbourhoods with little participation in higher education. We have certainly got more to do, but I believe that we are moving in the right direction. Overall, the number of UK students in higher education, as measured by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, has risen from 1.8 million in 1997-98 to 2.2 million in 2005-06. For those undergraduate students for whom HESA has social class data, the proportion from lower socio-economic groups has risen from 30.8 per cent. to 31.5 per cent. since 2002-03.

Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend is right to say that a general breakdown of data has been provided, but there has been no disaggregation of the data by university. One of the main arguments put forward by those of us who opposed variable tuition fees concerned the possible deterrent effect on people from poorer backgrounds, and we were also concerned that they might consider choosing cheaper universities. We need that data, and I would be grateful if the Minister published it. We have had only two years-worth of data, in which the figures were up and down. May I just quote Ivor Crewe, who was one of the main supporters of tuition fees—

Bill Rammell: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. He anticipates what is said in the paragraphs towards the end of my speech—I always thinks that it helps to leave the best news until last. I will come back to that issue, but he is fundamentally right.

Bill Rammell: I am off-sound rather than off-message, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My apologies for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) makes a pertinent point, because one of the frustrations in the debate about variable fees and their introduction concerns the obsession of the opponents of variable fees with focusing on full-time students instead of on the many thousands of other students who are rightly accessing higher education.
	On attainment, despite claims in the media that it is now easier for a person to get the qualifications that they need to go into higher education, the demands of studying and of achieving those qualifications are as high as they have ever been. The gap in attainment between higher and lower social classes goes some way to explaining the relative success that they have in getting to university. Our significant investment in schools since 1997 has helped to raise standards overall. The attainment gap, at age 16, between higher and lower social classes at level 2 is narrowing, and that is welcome, but it is still the case that only about a quarter of lower-social-class 18-year-olds achieve two or more A-levels, compared with around half of those from higher social classes.
	That is one of the most worrying and troublesome challenges that we face.
	The research shows that in the 1990s, children with parents whose incomes were in the highest 20 per cent. were about five times more likely to acquire a degree by the age of 23 than children with parents whose incomes were in the lowest 20 per cent. That is simply unacceptable, and we are determined to address the problem. Evidence shows that if someone makes a decision to stay on at school or college at 16, they are much more likely to stay in education after 18.
	The choice of too many 16-year-olds not to stay in education is the biggest barrier that we have to overcome. Through the development of diplomas, ongoing investment in personalised learning in schools and colleges and, crucially, initiatives such as education maintenance allowances, we are making progress. EMAs have contributed to an increase in participation in post-16 education that we expect to feed through to higher education. The proportion of 16-year-olds in the first post-compulsory year of full-time education at the end of 2005 is estimated to be 76.5 per cent.—the highest-ever rate and an increase of 2.7 percentage points since the end of 2004. It is the biggest step change in participation in full-time education at 16 since 1993.
	I now turn to aspirations, which are the most important challenge that we face. Significant investment in the Aimhigher programme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) mentioned, and other interventions are raising the aspirations of more young people with the ability and talent to enter higher education. Through a range of activities, such as university visits, master classes, mentoring and summer schools, we aim to show students from disadvantaged backgrounds what study at a higher level involves so that they can experience the realities, challenges and joys of being a higher education student. We welcome the fact that early evaluation of Aimhigher shows that its participants have more positive intentions towards higher education than non-participants. Furthermore, national data indicate that the gap between higher and lower social classes at age 16 intending to go on to higher education narrowed by almost 5 per cent. between 2001 and 2003. I strongly believe that the Aimhigher programme helps to show students from disadvantaged backgrounds that they, too, can strive for entry to universities with the most demanding admission requirements.
	That work is critical. Evidence suggests that even when their qualification levels are similar, people from lower social classes are slightly less likely than people from higher social classes to apply for higher education—and if they do, they are less likely to apply to the institutions and courses with the most demanding entry qualifications. That is a challenge for all of us, and for the way in which we advance the debate.

Paul Farrelly: In north Staffordshire we are slowly cracking the 16-plus argument, but they key issue is making sure that students aged 17-plus complete their courses. A policy in the White Paper package aimed at widening participation proposed that every district should have a choice adviser, who would advise students on which universities to choose, given the myriad fees and bursaries available. What happened to choice advisers, and will my hon. Friend point me to my local one in Newcastle-under-Lyme, because as far as I am aware, we do not have one?

Bill Rammell: My sincere apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The point about carers is important. One of the changes that we recently announced—an additional bursary for those leaving care—is an important step forward. The specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) made is one of the reasons why we need to keep such issues under review. I am not committing to anything today, but it is important that the system is as flexible as possible.
	As I said, I urge all universities that forecast a genuine underspend on bursaries to take the approach that I described earlier. It is right in principle, consistent with universities' social obligations, and important for the credibility of the new fees regime. That is why I am pleased that the Russell group and the 1994 group of universities are making clear their support for that principle today. I am also glad that the National Union of Students has given its support.
	Malcolm X said:
	"Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today."
	If we want a work force that can compete with the best in the world, adapt flexibly to the challenges of the global marketplace and deliver high productivity, we must ensure that more people have the higher level skills needed to achieve that. In my view, that will involve a big future expansion in work-based, flexible higher education.
	If we want a society that is fair and tolerant, where everyone has an equal chance to succeed and fulfil their potential and dreams, we must ensure that everyone with the talent and ability to benefit—whatever their background, class or bank balance—can pursue higher education. The Government will continue to take the actions necessary to bring about the fundamental changes required to widen participation, increase access and overcome the obstacles that continue to prevent too many bright people from disadvantaged backgrounds from entering higher education. The future success of our country depends on it.

Boris Johnson: I almost find myself apologising to almost everybody. If it pleases the hon. Gentleman to have an apology from me, I have absolutely no compunction about issuing one. All I would say is that the record will reveal that I did not, for one reason or another, contrive to vote with my party on that particular issue—one of the many reasons why I got into trouble—but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
	Unlike the creatures on the Liberal Democrat Benches, my party has changed. The Minister has hinted that there are signs of a thaw in the Liberal Democrat position, and it would be a good thing if representatives of the species other than the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) came to the House today and ventilated the change of heart that we are starting to see.
	The Liberal Democrat position is being exposed by the statistics as against the interests of the universities and against the interests of students—we should look at the figures from Scotland, as the Minister said—as well as regressive and socially unjust. I do not say that the UCAS figures are definitive—of course not—but if they are correct in so far as they relate to lower socio-economic groups, they are, as the Minister rightly said, very encouraging. There is a great deal more to be done, as he conceded, and the Government have been open in their confession of failure to attract candidates from lower socio-economic groups. We are not doing well enough yet in convincing people of natural ability from poorer backgrounds that university might be the place for them.
	The brutal reality—here I shall become more controversial—is that not enough of them are getting good grades in the demanding subjects that universities often require for entry.
	In 2004, only 28 per cent. of those from socio-economic groups 4 to 7 went to university and only 13.1 per cent.—more or less the same statistic that the Minister mentioned— from Labour party's traditional neighbourhoods. It would be quite wrong to blame the vice-chancellors, students or lecturers for those dismal figures, because all three are making huge efforts. Anyone familiar with today's students or who looks at their CVs knows how much time ambitious students at least seem to spend—who knows, they probably do spend—working with schools in deprived areas to encourage kids to think of themselves as potential university material. That happens to an extent that would have been unimaginable 20 or 25 years ago, or however long it was since I was at university. That is a wonderful thing for students to be doing, it will reap huge dividends over time and it is the way to go. That is why we completely support the objectives of the Aimhigher programme, though I note that the Minister has ordered a review of it and that it is to be cut by £19 million in 2007-08, so I would be grateful if he would explain the consequences of that cut for the objectives that we are all share.

Boris Johnson: It is particularly important that students have better advice on the right mixture of GCSEs necessary to gain admission to the place they want to go, but we will not solve the problem we are discussing by addressing the careers advice system alone. We must make sure that all children in all schools have equal access to the vital utensils that they will need to get to higher education. The hon. Gentleman trivialises the matter by endlessly banging on about Connexions.
	Let me turn to a point that has been repeatedly made: everyone involved in universities who is listening to this debate and my speech—and everyone else who is listening—would say that we are missing out addressing a huge chunk of matters relating to how we could widen access to higher education. The hon. Member for Bury, North made just that point a moment ago. We should not think of higher education as an 18-24 issue or even as an 18-30 issue. We have to encourage all sorts of groups to think of themselves as university material at all kinds of ages.
	We should also be expanding part-time study and it is interesting to hear the focus on that point in the Chamber today. We are clearly all getting pressure from constituents to expand part-time provision and find an imaginative way—I am sure that the Government can think of one—to ensure that part-time students have the same access to financial help as full-time students. That would be very expensive, and I am not making any spending pledge, because I would be immediately jugulated. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is in his place and watching me very carefully, but it would be good if we could consider the issue. I heard what the Minister said about not wanting to drive out business funding and the point about dead weight is well taken, but there has to be some way to help part-time students.
	It is sad that one sector that has declined under this Government is the adult and community learning sector. The Minister shakes his head and I hesitate to disagree with him, but the numbers for that sector are down on 1997.

Boris Johnson: That is very disobliging of the hon. Gentleman, who was being kind to me earlier. I have already made it clear that we have two concerns. The first and most important is that the school system is not adequate for the job of widening participation in the way that we all want to see. That is why we should look again at the league table system and there was some nodding by Labour Members when I made that point—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was nodding off —[ Interruption. ] Perhaps they were shaking their heads. I said that we must ensure that people did not face any disincentives when choosing to take the crunchy subjects that universities value and that assist people in getting into higher education. That would be a useful reform and it has been promulgated by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, who is in his place on the Front Bench.
	Secondly, we should consider part-time students, who come disproportionately—

Barry Sheerman: We should congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning on his role in initiating this debate on widening access. It is high time that we debated the subject in the House. The Select Committee on Education and Skills has just embarked on a major inquiry into the sustainable university and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is welcome to participate in any of our sessions. I am sure that some of the distinguished people who will give evidence over the next few weeks will be of great interest to him.
	We must look seriously at the progress report on higher education. Much of what the Minister said is right and should be welcomed. I hope I shall not be castigated by anyone in the university world if some of my remarks are a little uncomplimentary about the higher education sector's timidity in meeting some of the challenges.
	I think all parties agree that getting less-privileged young people into higher education is a difficult job, and that although all the statistics show that there has been gradual improvement, it has not been fast enough for most of us. What should we do about that? We know that more than 90 per cent. of 18-year-olds with the appropriate qualifications go into higher education. Most young people who remain in education after the age of 17 go on to higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who has left the Chamber, suggested. That is to be celebrated, but those figures do not include enough kids from poorer backgrounds. We need to raise both our aspirations for those young people and their achievements.
	Can I have my cake and eat it? What irritates me about some of our colleagues—not just Opposition Members, but Labour Members too—and many media commentators is that they pontificate about what goes on in our schools but do not actually visit them. In my job, I make sure that I get a strike record of visiting two or three schools a week. That means piling in an awful lot during term time. However, there is nothing like it.
	If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, picked up  The Sunday Times and read the education stories and finished with the last page and an article by the former chief inspector of schools, that would almost drive you to suicide. The only thing that prevents a suicidal act in my case is the prospect of visiting a real school on the Monday or Tuesday. If we go to a school, we see the good teaching, great learning and the highly motivated staff.
	The best teachers that I have seen in my lifetime are now coming through. The new generation of teachers make wonderful school leaders. Indeed, last week, I spoke at the national college for school leadership in Nottingham and saw how many new young heads are coming through aided by inspirational new programmes such as "fast track" that identify early on the young teachers who have the potential to become heads. I met two only last week. They are aged 29 and they are heads of their schools. That is truly inspirational.

Barry Sheerman: I was just trying to get the balance right. I meet many Members of Parliament who do not visit many schools, and I urge them to do so. However, let us put that issue to one side for a moment.
	We want to raise the aspirations of 18-year-olds. However, what was disappointing about the speech of the hon. Member for Henley was that he did not go below the age of 18 and explore what we can do to stimulate those pupils further. There was a broad generalisation that we must improve schools. Of course, that is so, but there has been a steady improvement. However, he did not mention the fact that the independent sector is good at identifying what he calls the "crunchy subjects". I am always a bit cautious about crunchy subjects because one person's crunchy subject is not the same as another's. Is economics a crunchy subject? Is law a crunchy subject?

Barry Sheerman: That is the Woodhead argument, is it not? It is not true. That is not the percentage of children leaving school at 11 with those low levels. The hon. Gentleman does the children and teachers of this country an injustice by exaggerating the levels of illiteracy and innumeracy. Perhaps he can provide me with the facts or statistics that would authenticate his wild view or perhaps he will change his view after two minutes in the way that he did with the Connexions service as the result of an earlier intervention. It is not right to talk about low levels of performance. The performance of children in our schools is improving steadily, although of course it is never good enough and we want it to be better.
	Let me talk about the responsibility of higher education in that respect. I have taken the Education and Skills Committee to visit many of the ivy league universities in the United States. People in those universities do not sit there, concerned and worried about the lack of bright students from less privileged backgrounds. The universities have a technique for identifying where those students are and a rigorous way of going out, finding them and bringing them into their institutions. If we look at the overall performance—particularly of the research-rich universities in our country—it is lacking, in terms of what our universities could learn from the United States. Stanford, Princeton and other leading ivy league universities in America have a map of America that shows every state, city and community. They know where the students are coming from and they know when they are underperforming in terms of attracting students from a particular state or municipality. They are so well organised that they use their alumni, as well as professional staff, to visit schools in areas from which they do not get students.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I welcome the fact that that is happening in British universities of every kind. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go further with the tax breaks and incentives that he can give to people who put something back by investing in the institutions from which they have benefited.
	Although we have teased each other about this, it is true that variable fees, or top-up fees, as the Lib Dems successfully called them, have been a success story. Those of us who passionately believed in variable fees and still have the bruises from our discussions about them in the House—they were backed by a very narrow vote in the opposition of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members—are seeing that the measure is showing much success. English universities are out-competing universities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on applications, and there is evidence that more children in England from deprived social and economic backgrounds are going into higher education than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a success story.
	Although we did not know about this, one of the less successful aspects of the measure that is now materialising—we have evidence for it—is the paradox that the universities with the most funding for bursaries have fewer students from socially deprived backgrounds to whom to award them. We have a problem that the research-rich universities have a disproportionate amount of funding for bursaries compared with the less well-endowed universities, where the need for bursaries is greater. We must do something about that.
	I heard what the Minister said about the use of unused funding for social inclusion, but there would be a danger that we could develop a system similar to that in independent schools. Independent schools justify their position to me by saying that they put money back into poorer students, but the "poorer students" to whom they give bursaries tend to be those with parents who are not very well-off and are struggling with the fees, rather than children who are from very poor backgrounds, but have ability. There is a danger that such a situation might arise if we were to give the bursaries to people who did not really deserve them.

Barry Sheerman: When the Select Committee intervened and held a session to try to bring the two sides together in the pay dispute, I asked the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers whether she was embarrassed about taking the money after opposing the proposal. She said that she did not feel any embarrassment at all.  [Interruption.] Well, I am glad that she spoke up for her members in that regard.
	Another problem affecting access to higher education is the existence of subcultures. We can discuss the problem in an airy manner, but some children face barriers to higher education. As I travel around England looking at the problem and talking to students, I meet people in my own community and in other communities, and I have discovered that there are distinct subcultures in which people do not believe that higher education can play a part in their life. They do not know anyone who went into higher education, and they do not have any neighbours in higher education. They live in communities where that aspiration is not voiced, so there is a tremendous onus on their teachers to introduce them to higher education.
	It is extremely difficult to tackle that problem. We know which parts of the country, which wards and which postcode areas are affected, so we must identify the relevant schools so that we can support them in raising aspirations and giving students the imagination to think about going to university. With my colleagues in the Select Committee, I try to visit schools around the country and talk not only to teachers but to parent and students. We know when we are in part of the country where that aspiration is low. I recently visited a Yorkshire school—it is not in my constituency—in a white working-class area of social housing. The head told me, "We don't have many aspirations that these children will go into higher education." That attitude made me angry, as it is rare that one hears such low aspirations from teachers.
	We must, however, tackle those subcultures. We know where they are, which is why I want more active participation by the Government, through whatever agency, so that schools can raise the aspirations of their students and tackle the problem. There are other subcultures that worry me, too. I have four children, two of whom went to Cambridge, one to Bristol and one to Edinburgh. I accept that I am lucky that my children all went to university in towns and cities that are accessible and pleasant to visit. They went to local comprehensives, and they all said that there is a subculture in those universities that puts off a hell of lot of children from ordinary backgrounds. I do not know as much about Oxford as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and other Oxford graduates in the Chamber, but a subculture dominated by the independent sector and the leading public schools is prevalent in our research-rich universities.
	That problem is underestimated. In the past five years, the number of students from Eton going to Oxford and Cambridge has grown from 38 to 70 students a year. That statistic makes me angry, as does a similar statistic for Westminster school. I do not wish to condemn those schools, but Oxford, Cambridge—and, I admit, the London School of Economics—are regarded almost as finishing schools for our leading independent schools. That is not the only problem, as a subculture has been set up within those universities. Having discussed the issue with my children, who have been to those universities, I know that there is another Oxford, another Edinburgh and another Bristol. That subculture is extremely off-putting to children from other—

David Howarth: As one of the working-class kids who was not put off by Cambridge's atmosphere and who went on to interview applicants for Cambridge undergraduate courses for 20 years, may I say that the reason why there is a different cut-off point for the Cambridge entrance procedure has to do with the desire to interview as many applicants as possible in as short a time as possible, in order to be fair in comparing various applicants. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) might be right to day that a different system would have a better effect, but he should be aware that there might be negative results of switching away from that system.

Stephen Williams: I enjoyed the long speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and I enjoyed some of the interventions even more. One of the other jobs that I do for my party in this House is to sit on the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which the hon. Gentleman chairs, and yesterday we visited the Natural History museum together to see the outreach work that it does in education. We did not see any Liberal Democrat creatures among the specimens there, nor Etonian creatures for that matter.
	When the Minister opened our debate, he rightly referred to the economic reasons why we need to get more people educated to level 4 or degree standard. The Leitch report, which has not been mentioned by name so far, has the rather challenging target of increasing from 29 per cent. to 40 per cent. the number of people in our work force who are educated to degree level. The stark statistic in the report, though, is that 70 per cent. of the 2020 work force have already left formal education. That suggests that the people who will need to go into higher education in order to achieve that target by 2020 will be the people who are currently in work, which suggests in turn that an even greater proportion of people than now will be studying for degrees part-time. Moreover, a greater contribution will probably be made by the further education college sector, which already contributes about 14 per cent. of the people who study for degrees. Those are some of the topics that we have not heard a great deal about this afternoon.
	We are here to discuss widening participation in higher education, which is about much more than simply increasing the stock of the population—the human capital—with a degree. Throughout the past few decades, because a greater proportion of the population have gone into higher education—we hear about fiscal drag; perhaps this is educational drag—people from all classes have participated to a higher degree. None the less, there are still some alarming gaps, which means that we do not have a broad mix of social classes within higher education. For instance, over the past 15 years the proportion of people with unskilled or manual worker parents who go on into higher education has increased from 11 per cent. to 19 per cent., whereas the proportion of children who have parents with non-manual or professional occupations has increased from 35 per cent. to 50 per cent. The social groups at either end of the social spectrum, as measured by the Office for National Statistics, have increased their participation in higher education, but nevertheless the gap has widened. If we go back 40 years, the proportion of students from the lowest socio-economic group of all has barely changed—it has increased, but the increase has not been dramatic—whereas the highest socio-economic group of students with professionally qualified parents who have been to university themselves has a participation rate in higher education of more than 80 per cent. That implies that we have reached saturation point in that social group.
	There are other differences in society. Nobody has referred to the gender difference that is opening up in higher education. For some years, the Government's favourite measurement of initial participation rates in higher education, for which they have the target of 50 per cent.—although they do not talk about it much any more—has been stuck at about 42 per cent. However, that is an average, and underneath that average we find that the participation rate is 37 per cent. for male students and 47 per cent. for girls—a 10 per cent. gap that is widening with each year that passes. That trend continues in the most recent UCAS application statistics, which the Minister is fond of quoting. There are 221,000 applications from women and 174,000 applications from young men.
	As many hon. Members have acknowledged, a large part of the explanation for that difference lies further back in the educational system: it reflects attainment at school, not just the higher education process itself. In future, the gap between girls and boys may actually have some beneficial aspects in society. The salary premium has been mentioned a couple of times. At the moment, male graduates tend to get the higher salary premium because of the kind of professions that males and females have traditionally gone into. Perhaps the widening gender gap means that women will start to dominate in some of the higher earning professions such as medicine, law and accountancy. That might be a good spin-off benefit.
	The ethnic gap has not been mentioned. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on 13 March, the Minister gave the latest available statistics, which show that only 305 students who identify themselves as black African, black British or black Afro-Caribbean, and only 300 who identify themselves as being of Bangladeshi origin went to Russell group universities. That is a pitifully small number, which does not get the attention that it deserves.
	Geographical variations have also emerged from the underlying trends. My constituency, along with others such as Sheffield, Hallam, is in the top category for participation in higher education. However, Bristol, South—which the Paymaster General represents and is just over the river from my constituency—and Nottingham, South are the bottom two parliamentary constituencies for participation in higher education. In one city, which is one of the most prosperous cities in Europe, and the most prosperous in this country after London and Edinburgh according to some measurements, there are stark differences in educational attainment and participation in higher education.

Stephen Williams: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find that I shall deal with fair access to particular institutions and the point that he makes shortly.

Stephen Williams: I thank my Select Committee colleague for his intervention. It is perhaps for the Minister rather than me to explain matters on behalf of the Government. However, even within the white group to which he refers, there are enormous variations between social classes. It is a flaw in the statistics that they do not reflect that. The participation rates of white boys from council estates in higher education are probably even lower than those of students who identify themselves as being from the different ethnic groups that we discussed.
	In my constituency, eight wards have higher education participation rates that exceed 43 per cent., which is the highest figure that is given in the Higher Education Funding Council's statistics. However, nine wards in Bristol, South have participation rates of below 16 per cent. In Bristol, North-West, Southmead ward has a participation rate of less than 10 per cent. Westbury on Trym, which is next door, but happens, by a quirk of the boundary, to be in my constituency, has a participation rate that exceeds 60 per cent. I shall not breach the rule about props, but simply mention that the cover of HEFCE's compendium of statistics, which I am holding, displays a map of the Bristol wards.
	There are similar pockets elsewhere. Not many representatives of rural constituencies are currently in the Chamber, but participation rates are unacceptably low in parts of Cornwall, Devon and other rural seats.
	What are the barriers to people accessing higher education? As has already been said, solving the problem lies not only with higher education institutions but attainment in school or college. Of course, the staying on rates at 16 or 17 is also important.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while there is an economic dimension in respect of the relationship between socially deprived areas and the staying-on rates, another problem is the lack of role models—perhaps people who have themselves been to university—in those communities to help raise the aspirations of youngsters to go to university.

Stephen Williams: Yes, I agree absolutely. I intend to say more about that later.
	The 2003 review of Steven Schwartz showed that of the top three Office for National Statistics social groups, 47 per cent. get the requisite A-levels to go on into higher education, compared with 23 per cent.—fewer than half—of classes 4, 5, 6 and 7. A large part of the problem could be dealt with, I believe, by the reform of the curriculum. Some points were raised about that in Education and Skills questions this morning. The reason why people are not achieving more at 16 or are not motivated to stay on beyond 16 probably lies in the school curriculum itself. Although we have a statutory school leaving age of 16, I think that many people in our communities leave school mentally at 14 or even younger. That is the big challenge for the Minister and his ministerial colleagues—to make sure that the 14-to-19 diplomas start to arrest that alarming situation.
	The Minister initially disputed the fact—though not when it was repeated—that 90 per cent. of people, from whatever social class, who get their A-levels go on into higher education. The big problem is therefore young people not reaching the standard of qualifications that they need. School reform is clearly outside the scope of this particular debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there are things that universities and higher education colleges can do about the problem. The Government's programme has a role to play, but universities can do more through their outreach work.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), I take part in the Royal Society MP-scientist shadowing programme, which I find extremely worthwhile. Last year, the chemist who was shadowing me—I was shadowing her on that particular occasion—helped me to find out much more about Bristol university's outreach work in Bristol schools and further afield in rural parts of Gloucestershire. It does much to enthuse children about the excitement of science—chemistry in that case—and to encourage school teachers into the university department to upgrade their skills and take them back into the classroom. Those teachers then help to get some of their children interested in what higher education has to offer them.
	I hope to speak in another Adjournment debate next Tuesday on the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, and perhaps that debate will provide an opportunity to enthuse people from different racial groups about history and their past. They might like to do what I did and go on to study history at university.
	There are many things that universities can do in their work with schools, but the hon. Members for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) are right that there are aspirational barriers as well as problems with attainment levels in schools. We have a part to play in trying to tackle them. When it comes to our parliamentary role in visiting schools, I think that I can trump the hon. Member for Huddersfield today, because I visited a school before I came here on Monday morning, and on Friday I will visit two primary schools and a secondary school as well. Like the hon. Gentleman, I try to do that as often as I can. We can find out far more about what is going on in our schools by visiting them than we can even by attending Select Committee hearings.
	Another barrier to participation in higher education is undoubtedly the burden of debt, exacerbated by fees and the different financial arrangements that students now face. The Minister has been crowing, as we all expected, about the latest UCAS statistics, which has been echoed by some, though not all, of his hon. Friends. The figures show that UK applications have gone up from about 371,000 to about 395,000—an overall increase of 23,624, to be precise. The point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the number of 17 and 18-year-olds who could have applied has gone up by 30,000.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the hon. Gentleman distance his party from some of the remarks that were made before the last election about tuition fees discouraging students from applying to go to university? We now have evidence that that is not the case. Will he also accept responsibility for discouraging some young people from low income backgrounds in my constituency from going to university, because his party's representation of tuition fees made no mention of the reintroduction of bursaries and grants?

Stephen Williams: No, I will not accept responsibility for that. In every speech that I made in the 2001 and 2005 general election campaigns, whether I was talking to schoolchildren or to people in student unions who had already gone to university, I was careful to make the point that if they had the educational attainment and the ambition to go to university, they should not let the prospect of debt put them off, because university would transform their lives. I am sure that all my fellow Liberal Democrat candidates would have said the same thing. I was actually trying to do some of the Government's work for them, and I continue to do it. However, that does not mean that we can disregard the fact that debt will be perceived by some students as a barrier to their going into higher education, or that it might well skew their occupational choices thereafter.
	I was talking about the Minister crowing about the UCAS statistics involving the increase in one year. To do so seems rather perverse, however, given that, underneath that statistic, there has also been an increase in the number of teenagers who are eligible to apply to university. We can get lots of good news out of the way in one go this afternoon, because the number of teenagers who are eligible to apply to go to university will increase every year between now and 2011. I am sure that the Minister will therefore have lots of good news for us in the future.

Eric Joyce: I do not think that it is perverse to celebrate the fact that a higher number of students are leaving school more qualified to go to university. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we had effectively reached saturation point among the better-off going to university. Clearly, the level of payment that people in the better-off groups are making is not affecting their entry into higher education. Is he arguing that the better-off should be paying more, to subsidise the least well off?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If university applications continue to increase in future years, will his party then recognise that its stance on tuition fees was wrong?

Stephen Williams: If the hon. Lady looks at my or the federal party website, she will see that the first thing that I did when the statistics came out—during the half-term recess, I think—was to welcome them. I welcome more people going into higher education, as would most of my colleagues. That does not mean that we cannot question some of the assumptions made about those statistics.
	As the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said, the UCAS statistics do not include the large number of people who apply directly to institutions, either because that is the way that they do it or because they are studying part-time. About 40 per cent. of students currently study part-time. The statistics leave those people out of the equation. We do not yet understand, because the statistics have not been made available to us, the effect of the arrangements on them.
	On social class differences, the Minister is clinging to a 0.3 or 0.4 per cent. increase—depending on which table one reads—in participation by lower socio-economic groups. Such a marginal increase in one data set is nothing to draw firm conclusions from. Earlier, he conceded that I had a fair point—just for once—in mentioning that the biggest sub-set of data in the UCAS statistics relates to students who do not volunteer information on their parents' socio-economic group. We cannot draw hard conclusions from such statistics.
	Debt may or may not make a difference. In some circumstances, in which a person is determined to go to university, I accept that it may not. Were I making my university choices again, despite coming from probably a similar background to the Minister's, from what he said earlier—mine was a single-parent family from a council house in south Wales—I would like to think that financial considerations would not have stopped me. But some people in a similar group might make a different decision. Even if people do go on to university, the issue might skew their choice of institution or subject. We do not know about that yet.
	Student bursaries are completely bewildering. I tried to replicate my choices of 20 years ago via the Aimhigher website and gave up after struggling to find out the different levels of financial support for the different institutions and subjects—history and economics—between which I was choosing at the time.

Stephen Williams: I think that they are. In the end, I chose history. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is nodding that I did a crunchy subject, and I certainly think that it was—I have not read his latest book about Rome, however, although I did see it in the Library the other day.
	The Department for Education and Skills has launched a new bursaries website in the past couple of weeks, which is a way of conceding that the information available was bewildering for students to navigate.
	It is possible that a third barrier is presented by the structure of degrees. The financial arrangements for part-time students may present a barrier as well, but it is likely that the structure of courses does not attract some people who would like to benefit from higher education. Perhaps we should adopt a credit-based system allowing students to dip in and out of higher education at different points in their lives, perhaps even studying at different institutions.
	The hon. Member for Henley nods. That happens to be my party's policy; I do not know whether it is his party's policy, or indeed whether he can speak for his party when his chaperon is absent. It seems that he does not dare to say anything! But it is my party's policy, something that may not be quite as well known as our opposition to variable fees at the last general election. We would like the degree structure to be reformed, so that students can take up a course of study and if their circumstances change—or for any other reason—can stop before continuing with it later, perhaps at a different institution, in order to build up a degree. I understand that Wales is beginning to move in that direction; perhaps England should consider doing the same.
	There has been an increase in foundation degrees over the past few years. We welcome that, and look forward to discussing it soon when we debate the Further Education and Training Bill. We may also need to consider the length of study involved in a full-time degree. Why does it have to be three years? It is not three years everywhere else, as we know from discussions we have had elsewhere about the Bologna arrangements. Perhaps the period could be condensed. Do students really need the long holidays that are required by the academics who teach them? If we condensed the programme of study into two years, the debt with which students leave university would undoubtedly decrease, and that would draw more people in.

Stephen Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me. I trust that the research takes place in the courts of Cambridge and not on a Mediterranean island—unless it is archaeological research, of course. Anyway, there are reforms that I think the higher education sector could introduce to increase participation rates among not just young people, but people of all ages.
	Fair access is another issue. Widening participation is not merely about increasing the total volume of people who enter higher education; it is also about the institutions at which they study. Some higher education institutions have been extremely successful in attracting more students. I recently visited the university of Bedfordshire in Luton, where 60 per cent. of students come from areas with a Luton postcode, and I have already mentioned the contribution made by further education colleges to attracting members of the local community to higher education. However, it is not just a question of going to university; it is a question of where people go.
	My life—like that of the Minister, as he told us earlier—was undoubtedly changed, not just because I went to university but because I left my home community, then still a mining village in south Wales, to enter a completely different environment in Bristol, where I met many students from Eton and other such schools. I had never met people of that sort before, but, unlike other Members who have spoken today, I was not put off by that, and to this day some of my best friends are people who went to those schools. Nevertheless, fair access must be an aim of widening participation. It is not just a question of increasing numbers; it is a question of ensuring that people have fair access to our top universities, a phrase that has been used a number of times today.
	The latest edition of the House of Commons compendium "Social Indicators" shows the benchmarks set by the Higher Education Funding Council for all higher education institutions. Some universities, such as Greenwich and Teesside, exceed their benchmarks for students from certain socio-economic backgrounds with given A-Level grades, while others—including, regrettably, Bristol, of which I am an alumnus and which I now represent in Parliament, as well as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Nottingham— fall short of their expected intake of students from social classes 4 to 7. I will not restart the debate between the hon. Member for Huddersfield—who has left the Chamber—and the hon. Member for Henley about the state school-private school gap, but as recent reports have shown it is widening in some higher education institutions. That leads to there being an important role for those institutions to play. I have mentioned the local outreach work that universities do; I know that Bristol university does that in local schools, and I am sure that all other universities also do such work.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the programmes at top American universities. I see no reason why such programmes could not take place at our universities as well. Under the "widening participation" postcode-related grants that universities receive from the HEFC for taking students from certain backgrounds, there is, effectively, a financial incentive. As we know where those low participation postcodes are, why can we not encourage universities to reach well beyond what they consider to be almost a catchment area and pair them off with particular schools, especially those in low participation areas, so that they can enthuse and draw in students from such backgrounds? When I was doing my own university applications—before somebody brings this up, I admit that I am an Oxford reject—I noticed from reading the Oxford prospectus that certain Oxford colleges have historical links to particular schools. Why cannot some of our universities develop links with certain state schools?
	To echo a point made earlier, we need to start this process when people are younger. If we start speaking to people when they are 14 or 15, it is probably too late. We need to do more work in our primary schools. I made that point earlier this week when I met some young scientists from the Royal Society of Chemistry representing a group called "Voice of the Future".
	Let me turn to my final point.  [Interruption.] I know that other Members are keen to speak, but I think that my speech has been briefer than the contributions from both of the other Front-Bench spokesmen—although perhaps I have not had as many interventions. Fees might skew the choice of subject that people make. We know that there is already a social imbalance in certain subjects: 45 per cent. of the medicine and dentistry intake come from the highest socio-economic group—higher managerial and professional people—compared with 8 per cent. from class 6, which covers semi-routine occupations. The figure for class 7 is so low that it is not even reported. The balance is better in law and business.  [Interruption.] Yes, so it is better in the professions of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and me, but, curiously, the trend is the opposite in education and teaching. Only 14 per cent. of the intake for degrees that lead to teaching careers is from the highest socio-economic group. We are also worried that the intake for science subjects is skewed. Part of the reason for that problem lies further back in the school system, and is to do with the qualifications of the teachers who teach the subjects—in particular physics and chemistry.
	There is a huge risk that the market system that the Government might introduce beyond 2009 will make such trends even worse. If we have genuine variability in the tuition fees, that might not deter people from participating in higher education, but I think that it will deter people from going to certain institutions and skew their subject choices.
	I began by mentioning the challenge of the Leitch report. Higher rates of participation in higher education will bring about economic prosperity and social justice. Widening participation is all about achieving social justice; it will make sure that we all share in prosperity, and it will also give us a chance of increasing social mobility in our country which, depending on which measurement we use, is either the lowest among the industrial countries or just above the level achieved in the United States. Many Members have cited statistics this afternoon. What is clear is that it is far too early to know with certainty whether fees are having a detrimental effect, but we certainly know that there is a lot more work to be done in widening participation.

Hywel Francis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). I do not necessarily agree with all of his analysis, but I share his objectives for social justice.
	I should declare an interest in terms of my personal background and as a parliamentary patron of the adult learners' body NIACE—the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education—and a vice-president of Carers UK. I also participated in adult education as a tutor for most of my working life and I continue that interest as a professor emeritus at Swansea university, my former university.
	I welcome this debate as an opportunity to recognise and applaud the work of the Labour Government since 1997 in widening participation. The debate is important for two other reasons. The first is the long and honourable record of higher education in attempting to address the questions of social and economic injustice. The second is the current challenge of the skills agenda, as we have already heard from the hon. Gentleman, and—following the Leitch report—the interface between the skills agenda and part-time higher education. That will be the main subject of my contribution.
	Before I come to that issue, I will indulge myself in discussion of another crunchy subject—history, which is my discipline—and provide a brief historical perspective. Arguably the most influential thinker on education of the 20th century was Michael Young, the founder of the National Extension college, the inspiration behind the Open university and—the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) may not know this—largely the author of the 1945 Labour manifesto. In his seminal work, "Labour's Plan for Plenty" from 1947, which was largely the Labour manifesto, he paid tribute to Britain's greatest social thinker of the 19th century, Robert Owen. We commemorate the 150th anniversary of Robert Owen's death next year. Michael Young said:
	"Of all the social services, education is far and away the most important. 'The best governed state,' said Robert Owen, the pioneer of modern socialism, 'will be that which shall possess the best national system of education.'"
	We would all endorse that.
	It is to the credit of this Labour Government since 1997 and of our first Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as the post was then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that one of his first acts was to establish the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. I was privileged to be appointed as a member of that group. Its two reports, "Learning for the 21st Century" and "Creating Learning Cultures: Next Steps in the Learning Age", provided the intellectual ground work for the progress in the last decade in such major issues as the interface of lifelong learning with community development, access to learning, stimulating demand among under-represented groups in further and higher education, and building networks and partnerships in localities and regions.
	Democratic devolution was developing at the same time in the late 1990s in Scotland and Wales and they pioneered their own educational programmes, which were more radical in some respects. In Wales, the whole vision of the Welsh Assembly Government was of a learning country, and that encouraged much wider participation, especially in building interesting relationships with the voluntary sectors and women's groups, and in developing the notion of community universities in different parts of Wales that had begun to develop in the period after the miners' strike in 1984-85.
	I turn now to the contemporary challenge for the skills agenda and part-time higher education. I believe that all higher education institutions should address the question of widening participation and the need for greater opportunities for part-time students from the perspective of not only social equity but economic progress. The challenge is both global and local; the two are complementary.
	A national campaign would be welcome to highlight the valuable contribution that part-time higher education could make if there were greater opportunities and proper financial support for such study. The National Union of Students debate in Central Hall on 21 March will no doubt provide the opportunity to begin such a campaign. I have been impressed by NUS representations, which reminded us recently that 42 per cent. of HE students are part-time, yet the equalities review of March 2007 shows that the great expansion in higher education has apparently led to an increase of only three percentage points in the number of graduates from the poorest families. That is a debatable figure—indeed, it was discussed earlier—although it is too soon to assess the recent changes. However, it is a major challenge to all of us, especially my Labour Government and other parties.
	For that reason, and from the perspective of social equity and the global economic challenge, the recent written evidence of Professor David Latchman, Master of Birkbeck college, to the Education and Skills Committee is important. I visited the college recently, as did the hon. Member for Henley who gave a lecture there—he would not allow me to intervene earlier when I wanted to refer to my visit. Professor Latchman is a dynamic leader of that institution, whose president is the distinguished historian, Professor Eric Hobsbawm. Birkbeck is a higher education institution serving one of the great cities of the world and a range of students who largely study part-time. I was impressed by the fact that it is ahead of Government and other thinking about how we address the skills deficit and widening participation, especially in its innovative project to develop a new campus in the east of London and the Thames Gateway.
	Professor Latchman raised important issues, with which I am sure many Members are familiar, about ensuring that part-time study is better supported. Before I go through them, I should point out that many other higher education institutions that are supportive of part-time students, such as London South Bank university, my own university—Swansea—and the North East Wales institute of higher education, would also benefit if we addressed the economic barrier faced by part-time students.
	Professor Latchman made the following points: first, it is necessary to make use of full economic costing in determining the allocation of teaching funds, to recognise the higher cost of part-time provision; secondly, the funding allocation must be responsive to the flexible and modular patterns of study followed by part-time students; and, finally, there must be recognition that the present funding method has limited scope for increasing part-time fee rates as a means of closing the funding gap faced by many institutions, such as Birkbeck, which have a large number of part-time students. I look forward to the Minister's response to the points raised by Birkbeck and similar institutions.
	Carers are an under-represented group in higher education, yet bearing in mind their caring responsibilities they could benefit enormously from part-time study. The Government have done outstanding work in supporting carers—from the Prime Minister's national carers strategy in 1999, which established the carers special grant, to my Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, which the Government supported and highlighted the importance of education and training opportunities for carers, and the Work and Families Act 2006, which gives carers the right to request flexible working. To build on that progress, I believe that the current review of the national carers strategy should recognise the pioneering work of the National Extension college in helping carers to access further and higher education. There should be a section in the new review on carers' ability to access such opportunities. That would contribute enormously to addressing the question of social exclusion and the need to widen the participation of this very important group. The whole question of the 21-hour rule is a serious barrier to carers studying part-time.
	As I said at the outset, I have focused on the new skills challenge and its relationship with part-time study. I end by paying tribute to a pioneer in this field—Bob Fryer who 10 years ago was the principal of the Northern college. He was chair of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning and, since that time, he has continued the important work of widening participation by developing innovative and Government-supported strategies that could be seen as a model for future action. He was a leading figure in the early years of the University for Industry, which is now rebranded as learndirect, then the chief executive of the national health service university, and he is now the Department of Health's national director for widening participation in learning. His work shows how seriously the Department of Health takes the development of its staff, especially the 25 per cent. who are qualified below NVQ level 2. His first report last year identified a great disparity between professional and non-professional employees in the national health service and it is something that I know the Department will take seriously. It is very much part of the whole debate about widening participation.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the fact that we should not be narrow in our definition of higher education. It is not entirely about residential, full-time university opportunities; it is about work-based learning, home-based learning and a whole host of other things that have been developed by fine institutions such as the Open university.
	I conclude by not only referring to the great and the good, such as Michael Young and Bob Fryer, as pioneers, but by recognising those people at the grass roots, such as Lesley Smith and Julie Bibby, who are carrying forward the work of widening participation for working-class women in former mining communities through the work of organisations such as the Dove workshop in the Dulais valley. It is now held up throughout Europe as a model of how to address the skills deficit in socially deprived communities. I should declare an interest at this point: my wife was one of the founders of the workshop and is its current president.
	I am wearing the tie of the university of Wales, whose motto is "Prifysgol y Werin"—the people's university, an aspiration that we all share. The challenge before us today is much easier than it was 150 years ago, when the university of Wales was established. The pennies of the poor, which inspired the establishment of the university of Wales, still inspire developments such as the Community university of the valleys, with which I was associated, Birkbeck college's fine work in east London, and—most inspirationally of all—London South Bank university's partnership with universities in South Africa to widen participation for black and coloured peoples, women, and working class people in that new country. It is the task of this Labour Government to sustain, widen and deepen such initiatives so that they are not marginal, but are mainstream in our higher education system. That would be a real achievement.

Jeremy Wright: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), because I want to pick up on some of the points that he made about part-time students, but also because I share with him an interest that I should declare: until fairly recently, my wife was in charge of widening participation at Warwick university. I should put that on the record from the outset, before I start complimenting Warwick university on all the wonderful work that it did until recently to widen participation—and, of course, is still doing.
	It is quite apparent from what we have heard in the debate so far that the issue of widening participation in higher education has been around for a great many years, but the issue has changed and developed. Whereas once upon a time we might have talked about the need to bring more women into higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has just observed, that is most distinctly no longer the issue. If anything, the issue is now the opposite of that. It is just as true to say that, as the Secretary of State observed yesterday and this morning, we must look at how to bring more white working-class boys and young men into higher education, as to say that we must look at many ethnic minority groups.
	The issue is changing and developing and we find new challenges within it. One of those new challenges, to which reference has also been made, is the need to bring more disabled people into higher education. That brings with it specific challenges that are to do with the need to persuade people with disabilities, whether physical or mental, that university is an environment within which they can thrive. I say that because, for those with a disability, it is particularly challenging and worrying to have to adapt to a new environment. It is important for that group that we make every effort to ensure that the environment is reassuring and that the development that they will need to find within the environment that they will move into will be suitable for them.
	Above all—this applies not just to disabled potential students, but to many of the other groups that we have talked about—we need to find new and imaginative ways to persuade people of something on which everyone has focused. I am talking about the issue of explaining how it is that, despite their initial perception, university is a place within which they can do well and feel comfortable. One of the most imaginative and effective ways to do that is to develop mentoring programmes. If it is possible to demonstrate to someone that a student who is just like them—in terms of their background, the challenges that they have faced and the interests that they share—has done well at university, that is the most effective way that I can think of to show a prospective student that they will also do well in a university setting. I hope that what the Government have in mind for developing the widening of participation in higher education will include an element of mentoring because that is very effective.
	I want to widen the debate beyond the issues about which we have talked at some length and to concentrate on how we can broaden out the 18-to-30 age group that is going into university. We could widen participation among those outside that group. I disagree with the Government's 50 per cent. target for participation in higher education among the 18-to-30 age group for several reasons. One of the target's flaws is the fact that it tends to focus too much attention on that age group and thus to underline the perception that higher education is only for people between the ages of 18 and 30 and that when one reaches the age of 30, it is no longer an appropriate course to pursue. That is profoundly wrong, and it is entirely at variance with other things that the Government are properly trying to do to develop the idea of education being a lifelong experience.
	In many ways, the problem is mirrored by what is happening with adult learning courses. For perfectly understandable reasons, the Learning and Skills Council is focusing its attention and funding on the 14-to-25 age group, but the people who suffer are those outside that age group who are trying to attend adult learning courses later in life. Again, I understand why that focus is there and I sympathise with many of the reasons for it. However, one of its consequences is that it underlines the perception that if one has not taken the chance to go into higher education early in life, one cannot do so later. Such a situation would be profoundly regrettable.
	I am not making my point solely to criticise the Government because, contrarily, I think that they are trying to deal with the situation. It is important that people understand that education, and especially higher education, is about second chances as well as first chances. Someone who did not go into higher education should be able to do so later, and people who, for whatever reason, went into higher education and then came out of it should be able to go back. Academics and those involved in higher education often say that people who go back into higher education later in life after an initial only-too-brief experience have done proportionately better on the second occasion and better than others who have gone straight into higher education. There is a lot to be said for the opportunity to go in, or back in, at a later date.
	It is important that we develop the idea of lifelong learning and consider widening participation in that context. We face a changing economic world in which few people of my age or younger will be able to look forward to one career from the moment they leave education to the moment they retire. We have realised that that is true for manual trades and technical professions, but we might not have recognised it quite so comprehensively for the professional or academic fields. For people in those fields, too, there will be huge burdens of retraining and expectations of re-education, so universities have a massive part to play in developing that re-education and retraining.
	I accept that that already happens, to an extent, so I congratulate universities on what they do. They already effectively provide continuing professional development for those in mid-career who wish to develop their skills. I would like to see more of that. However, we face a particular challenge when addressing those who are between careers because, for whatever reason, they have left their particular employment or profession. Such people might wish to retrain and re-educate themselves so that they can go forward in a different field. However, those people are often in an especially difficult position. Employers, of course, see it as in their interests to pay for the continuing professional and academic development of their staff, so they do so. The universities find that helpful and they provide a good service. However, people who are between careers have a problem because they do not, by definition, have an employer that can help to fund what they wish to do to retrain, to be re-educated, or to re-skill. How are they to fund what they wish to do? Those individuals face particular problems. The hon. Member for Aberavon mentioned people who wished to become part-time students; overwhelmingly, the people I am describing will wish to study part-time, rather than full-time. They may face caring responsibilities, or more general family responsibilities, and they may well be obliged to earn money while studying. They will almost certainly face the challenge of having to re-acquaint themselves with how studying and learning works, because they will have been absent from education for some time. They will face particular challenges, and although the issue is partly about how we can structure their education experience so that they feel more comfortable with it, it is substantially about funding.
	I do not have a magic solution to offer the Minister any more than anyone else does, but neither his Government nor any other Government can simply say, "The issue is too difficult and complicated; we won't address these problems." An answer must be found, because the group of people to whom I am referring will become ever larger, and will have ever more demanding needs. We need to find a way to ensure that their educational experience is comfortable, and we need to ensure that they can afford to undertake those educational tasks and can sustain themselves economically while they do so. That is partly because of the economic benefits that they will receive, but partly because of the benefits that we will all receive if more people reach a higher standard in education.
	There are wider benefits to higher education, too, but very little has been said about them this afternoon. There are huge cultural benefits, benefits of well-being, and straightforward health benefits to higher education and further education. We have an increasingly ageing population that will need to return to education more often. People may wish to return to education once their working life is done. They may well want to re-enter some form of education during what may be a very long retirement, in order to keep their brain active and keep themselves interested, and we should encourage that. Why should we not talk about widening participation in higher education for those in retirement? They will have the time, and may have the income, to go into higher education. There must be considerable advantages to our society of encouraging people to keep their brains active, given that we know that dementia, Alzheimer's and other conditions among older people will be an increasing drain on the health budget.
	I am keen to allow others to participate, but I wanted to speak in favour of broadening the definition of widened participation, so that it included those beyond the 18-to-30 age group, important though that is. I want to talk about a broader idea of what education should be; it should be a genuine life-long learning experience. It should not be expected or anticipated that a person's education will finish when they are 16, 24, 60 or 84. It should genuinely be an opportunity that people may take advantage of at any stage of their life. If we can achieve that, we will genuinely have widened participation.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, congratulate the Minister on introducing today's debate. Like many others in the House, I share a real interest in widening participation in higher education. As hon. Members may well know, before I entered the House, I worked in higher education and did stints at Ruskin college and the Open university, two institutions that are absolutely committed to widening participation.
	The debate is important, because it underpins values held by the Labour party, most notably the value of securing equal opportunity for all socio-economic groups when it comes to education. That is one of our foundations, and it remains an important aspiration. I am sorry to start on a contentious note, but I could not disagree more with the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) about the Government's aspiration of getting 50 per cent. of young people into higher education. We have to look closely at why the Government set that target. It has helped us to shape the debate about higher education by focusing it clearly on getting more people into HE.

Jeremy Wright: I accept, as does the hon. Lady, that it is a good thing to get more people into higher education, so I do not object to the target on those grounds. However, if we set a target of 50 per cent. we instantly suggest to young people who are seeking to go to university that if they do not do so, they must be in the bottom half. There is no problem in saying that we want as many people as possible to go to university who have the capability and ambition to do so, and who will benefit from the experience, but there is no reason for putting a figure on it.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I accept that point only insofar as we should not rest with the minimum. We must do everything that we can to encourage as many young people and other age groups to go to university. However, it is important to provide an aspiration, as it helps to focus everyone's attention on getting more young people and others into university.
	It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) is not in the Chamber because he discussed the Leitch report, which made the point that we need to upskill the entire population. Some of that upskilling will take place in further education to level 3, but we must give our young people higher-level skills if we are to achieve a knowledge-based economy and compete internationally. In the past couple of years, I have had the opportunity of visiting India and China, where there is massive investment in the higher education system and a hunger for learning among young people. If we are to compete in future we must ensure that our young people have suitable skills.
	There are other reasons for extending higher education opportunities. Recent forecasts by the Institute of Employment Research show that half of the 12 million jobs—some 6 million—likely to become vacant between 2004 and 2014 will be in occupations most likely to employ graduates. Graduates are more likely to enjoy better health and are less likely to commit crime. They are much more likely to engage actively in civil society, and we need no other reason for trying to encourage access to higher education. So far, the Government's record is quite good. Since 1997, university applications for undergraduate enrolment have risen by about 23 per cent., and there has been a 28 per cent. increase for postgraduates. The proportion of first-degree entrants to university from state schools has risen, as has the number of young people going to university from low-participation areas. About 28.2 per cent. of young entrants to first degree courses are from the lowest socio-economic groups, which shows that good progress has been made on achieving the 50 per cent. target. However, Government Members are not at all complacent, and we accept that much more needs to be done if we are to achieve the 50 per cent. target and, indeed, exceed it, as we all want to do.
	To achieve that goal, the Government have taken a number of steps to improve the admissions process. In particular, they have sought to raise aspirations. Not only do we have to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for everyone, but we must ensure that we raise the aspirations of people in the lowest socio-economic groups, as well as their attainment at university level. That means encouraging more young people to engage in post-16 learning. As well as young people doing A-levels and going straight on to university, there has been an increase in part-time study at university.
	When considering the 18-to-30 group, we perhaps do not pay enough attention to the expansion that has taken place in work-related learning and work-based learning, and the excellent work that a number of trade unions are doing in the workplace through Unionlearn and by getting employees signed up to opportunities for more training and further qualifications.
	Aimhigher has been mentioned this afternoon. It is a national programme that we know works in some of the intensively disadvantaged areas of the country. It co-ordinates a number of activities locally from HE, FE, schools and the learning and skills councils to encourage more young people into higher education and further education. I welcome the activities that Aimhigher carries out in my constituency, but I would like to hear more from the Minister about how it will be reviewed and how it might be transformed so that it can extend its work further.
	I shall say something more about the higher education institution and the further education institution in my constituency. When we have these debates, we sometimes forget about the tremendously good work that is already being undertaken by institutions to raise aspiration and extend access. As the MP for City of Durham, I draw attention to the work of Durham university and New college Durham. Durham university is one of our leading research institutions. It would probably accept that it could do more to widen access. Nevertheless, it has a school targeted aspiration raising scheme, which it calls STARS, fortunately. That is targeted at local schoolchildren aged 14 to 16 to give them an idea of what it is like to be a student. They are brought into the university for study days and given mentors in the community.
	I also want to draw attention to the mentoring scheme that Durham university runs through Collingwood college for its students to mentor looked-after children. We need to put more effort into raising the educational attainment of looked-after children, and the mentoring scheme has been shown to be extremely successful in raising the aspirations of those children. The Government should try and think of ways in which that scheme could be rolled our further. Durham university does all the things that almost all education institutions in the country do, by offering master classes, summer schools, talks and tours for years 12 and 13.
	New college Durham undertakes activities though the Aimhigher programme. It has a target of taking 75 per cent. of its students from low income neighbourhoods. We should applaud that target and the college's efforts to work with local schools and other colleges to meet it.
	There are a few topics on which I should like to hear the Minister's comments. We have heard the figures that show that the Government are making considerable progress towards the 50 per cent. target, but there is more to do. What role will extending foundation degrees, particularly vocational foundation degrees, play in achieving the target? How might the Further Education and Training Bill address the issue by giving colleges the ability to award their own foundation degrees? What more can be done to encourage universities, particularly ones like Durham, where the majority of the intake comes from the independent sector, to get more applications and more students from state schools into our best universities, and to ensure that some of those students come from lower income backgrounds, to raise aspirations across the board? Will the Education and Inspections Act 2006 be an important factor in that respect in terms of extending the right of schools to have a sixth form?
	Will the Minister acknowledge that there is still a need to streamline all the different organisations involved in promoting skills and skills development? The situation is incredibly confusing for not only young people, but older people who are trying to get back into higher or further education, because they are bombarded with information from a huge number of agencies. There needs to be better liaison between local authorities, learning and skills councils and schools in an area in order to plan effectively.
	On sixth form and post-sixth form places, we may need to look at support for part-time students. Science teaching and the need to produce more science graduates has been mentioned this afternoon. I have a science learning centre in my constituency, and it is excellent. It is giving wonderful support to teachers, and we need to consider how to roll out that model. I am absolutely certain that a science learning centre and the support that it gives to teachers means that there are more young people taking science-based subjects at A-level and going on to study science-based subjects through higher education. Can attention in the 14-to-19 curriculum be given to not only vocational subjects, but encouraging young people to take their education on to further education and foundation degrees?
	I will finish there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.

Robert Wilson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. We all agree that, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has outlined, the issue that we are discussing this afternoon is very important.
	To be fair, the Government have committed enormous resources and effort to trying to widen participation and improve fair access to higher education; they have spent some £350 million of taxpayers' hard-earned cash on that in recent times. I criticise them not for their commitment but for their use of outdated dogma, and to some extent for their incompetence. The Government suffer from the same problems that afflict many in the education establishment.
	I have looked at a number of briefings for this debate from organisations ranging from the National Union of Students to the Association of Colleges, many of which make the same basic error. They seem to believe that the Government can do everything—that the Government can intervene and change the world to create a perfect model of society. I suggest that the lesson of the past 10 years is the opposite of that: we need less interference in order to achieve more success. The old saying "Less is more" is relevant in this particular case.
	Part of the problem is that the Government have approached increasing participation from the bottom socio-economic groups from the wrong end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) has said, much of the problem in getting a wider section of social groups into higher education lies in primary and secondary schools and the social problems in the areas surrounding those schools. As several hon. Members have said, there is a poverty of aspiration in many parts of the country today, and far too many parents have a poverty of aspiration for their children. We can set as many artificial and socially engineered targets as we like, but if we do not tackle that poverty of aspiration, improvements will be difficult to achieve and maintain. Our schools, both primary and secondary, do not currently provide a significant ladder of opportunity for social classes 4 to 7 as measured by UCAS.
	Despite all the initiatives and money spent, the overall additional participation of the bottom social classes is only 1.8 per cent. since 2002, and just over 3 per cent. since 1997, according to the Library. That is not a significant return on the huge investment that has been made, and it is despite the bigger numbers going into higher education since the mid-1990s. From 1994 to 2005, the number of home students accepted at universities through UCAS rose from 251,000 to 360,000—an increase of about 30 per cent. I congratulate the Government on making funds available for that and on making further funds available for an increase of another 50,000 over the next couple of years.
	The good news is that more young people go into higher education and will continue to do so, but the bad news is that they do not come from an increasingly wide socio-economic group, despite all the Government's top-down schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, the latest wheeze is to record whether applicants' parents went to university so that admissions tutors can make judgments as to which candidates deserve to go to their universities. Our great academic institutions are being encouraged to pick students not on merit but on the basis of what their father did decades before. After last week's debate, some will appreciate the irony of this Government's establishing a new hereditary principle. Universities are being penalised for not hitting arbitrary targets for the number of poor students they should be taking; several have had funds cut as a result. That kind of social engineering attacks the problem from completely the wrong end, and does nothing to resolve the issues.
	One thing that the Government may have got right, although it is still too early to tell for certain, is top-up fees. The figures suggest that after last year's dip, this year's applications have climbed by about 7 per cent. That is good, but as we have heard, the NUS and others, including the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), suggest that it may be related to the demographic bulge.

Robert Wilson: Well, we will see about that. The NUS also makes a significant point about the 42 per cent. of higher education students who are part-time, about whose socio-economic class we do not have much information. For poorer students, there is something to be said for an annual grant of £2,700 plus a university bursary and interest-free loans that do not have to be paid back until they start earning. That may incentivise some poorer students to go to university; it certainly should not disincentivise them, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman suggested, particularly as fees are not paid up front. What I find less convincing, and less attractive, about that model is its effect on those who fall just above the qualification level. As always, students and parents who are just above the qualification level for such grants and bursaries face the biggest barriers to entry.
	On student funding, I am prepared to listen carefully to any further evidence-based plans from the Government, as I think that they are going in the right direction. However, within the overall context of widening participation, policy mistakes are limiting access for poorer socio-economic groups. Let me demonstrate that with a couple of examples of how the schools system, as run from the centre, has militated against the success of the Department's own purported aim of improving fair access.
	Two years ago the Government stopped languages being a compulsory subject when they dropped them from the core curriculum at key stage 4. Surprise, surprise—the numbers taking languages slumped. In 2004, 80 per cent. took one language or more at GCSE; now only half that number do. With fewer and fewer young people taking the subject to GCSE and then on to A-level, many universities struggle to recruit students. Consequently, languages are becoming elitist because only middle class students study them at top universities. While the number of comprehensive schools teaching languages falls, grammar schools, specialist schools and independent schools forge ahead with them. Students from those schools go on to the Russell group of universities. However, further down the pecking order, 16 universities no longer offer a degree in the four major languages of French, German, Italian and Spanish.
	Many schools in the state sector no longer teach single science subjects. The flow of students studying pure science at university has become a trickle. That has caused approximately 80 departments to close in recent years, including the physics department at Reading university, in my constituency.
	The changes in language and science teaching in schools have had a direct negative impact on the number of young people from specific social groups who can participate in important academic subjects. The chances of those who have not had a middle class upbringing being able to study a pure science or a language at university are increasingly slim.

David Chaytor: No, I am sorry.
	If we can develop a more egalitarian, less hierarchical and less elitist secondary school system, it follows as night follows day that more young people will achieve more at 14, 16 and 18 in a way that will provide them with an automatic route into university.
	They will not all be studying philosophy, politics and economics or ancient history at Oxbridge, but a range of important subjects. The progression from school to university, however, will become more automatic and inevitable if we lift the level of talent of all our pupils, and if the choice of school has less effect on the eventual outcome.
	The 14 to 19 reforms are a hugely important development, which relates directly to the widening of participation in universities. It is regrettable that the Government did not adopt Mike Tomlinson's report in its totality. I hope, however, that the issue remains on the table for the future. We make a mistake, however, if we believe that the key to the problem is somehow to get parity between the vocational and the academic. As long as the academic subjects lead to the kinds of careers that pay two, three, four or even 10 times as much as those to which the vocational subjects lead, parents and students will never be convinced of parity. The key lies in eliminating the nonsensical concepts of vocational and academic.  [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Henley agrees.
	Medicine, of course, is the classic example of a vocational subject. For decade after decade, our system has produced people who know every fine detail of the history of the Peloponnesian wars, but who cannot change a plug or switch on the dishwasher. It is critical that rather than trying to get parity between the two concepts, which we will not achieve, we eliminate those concepts and develop a new framework and set of terms of reference to describe the different natures of learning reflected in the practical and the conceptual.
	On costs and fees, among the most important steps forward in the past 10 years to a more egalitarian education system were the introduction of tuition fees in universities in 1999, and the extension of those fees by raising the maximum level to £3,000 for 2006. Those were hugely controversial steps. Once the effects have been analysed in four years' time, when the first cohort of students will have gone through the new system with a maximum £3,000 fee, I believe that the case will be made for raising the cap. We cannot continue to finance a world-class university system largely on the back of the taxpayer. We need different sources of funding, to which fee income will contribute. I also find it impossible to understand how anyone who believes that it is reasonable to pay a fee for a child's secondary education should find that the taxpayer pays the largest part of the fee for that child's university education. That is completely and utterly illogical. Raising the cap will be an important and high-profile political issue three or four years from now.
	Finally, may I make a plea that the Government do it differently next time? We cannot just sit back as we did last time, and subcontract the decision to Sir Ron Dearing or some other expert. We cannot just have an external analysis of the impact of raising fees on the first cohort, and then try to push the change through Parliament. We must prepare the ground and develop a better understanding among Members of the three main parties represented here and among the wider public, parents and students. We should start discussing the arguments for and against raising the cap. We should not leave it to the last minute. We must do the groundwork so that in 2010, when I believe that the case will have been made for raising the cap in a careful and regulated way—and in a way that provides sufficient scholarships and bursaries so that no applicant from a low-income background feels that they cannot go to university—that change will become part of the new consensus in an expanding, thriving and internationally competitive university system.

Bill Rammell: I think that our debate has been genuinely helpful, informed and instructive. I must say that at the outset I did not expect, at the conclusion, to be urged from the left to lift the cap, and I greatly respect my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for that. I will not alter my opinion that we need to see what happens during the first three years of operation, but my hon. Friend's speech underlined the fact that there is a redistributive case for the system that we have introduced. I think that that is one of its merits.
	I was pleased that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) began by saying that we should encourage more young people in lower socio-economic groups to enter higher education. I wish, from a Conservative perspective, that that could be stated clearly in the columns of the  Daily Mail and  The Daily Telegraph.

Bill Rammell: Their columns—apart from the hon. Gentleman's— constantly attack the Government for pursuing exactly that objective, but if we have a cross-party consensus here, that is to be welcomed.
	Like many other Members who spoke, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Aimhigher programme and our review of it. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) asked me about the review, which I instigated. I did not do so because I wanted the programme to be cut; I think that it is an excellent programme. However, I also think we should ensure that it is targeted as effectively as possible. The review has identified the fact that while an immense amount of good work is being done, it is not being targeted as closely as it should be on young people and children in the lower socio-economic groups.

Bill Rammell: My point is that the money is there to target young people from the poorest backgrounds, which is not happening in all circumstances. We need to put that right.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to make a number of comments about the fact that the key challenge in providing access to higher education is posed not by the university admission system, but at a much earlier stage. I agreed with that analysis, but I parted company with the hon. Gentleman when he repudiated the real progress made in the last 10 years in driving up attainment in state schools. There has been a step change in performance during that time. However we structure the figures—whether or not we include English or maths—there has been a significant improvement in the performance of state schools which, before 1997, had been flatlining for some time.
	The hon. Gentleman majored on the position in the Russell group of universities. Ten thousand more young people are gaining access to those universities than were doing so in 1997. Is that enough progress? No, we have further progress to make; but I think the figure demonstrates that progress is being made.
	We saw a couple of weeks ago how long it takes for a clear commitment on the part of the Conservative party to mellow into an aspiration. I think there was a gap of two minutes between the hon. Gentleman's commitment to abolishing the Connexions service and his commitment to reforming it. I found that an instructive example of the evolution of Conservative party policy.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about announcements made by the UCAS board about the need to take account of socio-economic and parental backgrounds. I should make it clear that the decision was made by the UCAS board, which includes representatives from universities across the country. It is a positive response to the Schwartz review's recommendations on an holistic assessment process. The Government did not ask for the decision or intervene in it, but I certainly welcome it. The new arrangement is optional for higher education institutions, which can decide for themselves whether they want to use it, but it could help the difficult process of assessing potential, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. Universities have been grappling with the issue for some time, and I think we undervalue its importance if we decry it.
	The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), on whom I intervened, began by accusing the Government of outdated dogma. In fact, his comments demonstrated his own outdated analysis of the Government's policies and programme. He made one statement that was completely erroneous, and which motivated me to intervene on him. He talked about the targets for higher education institutions in respect of the proportions of students from poorer backgrounds and state schools accessing them, and he then made the completely unsubstantiated claim that if universities do not meet those targets, they will be financially penalised. That is simply untrue. They are not performance targets, there is no link with funding, and I hope that he will withdraw those comments.
	The hon. Gentleman also made some comments about the teaching of modern languages. The most significant change that we can make is the one that this Government are committed to: to ensure that by 2010 every child in every primary school in this country has access to learning a modern foreign language. The key change we are making is to introduce that commitment at primary school level.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about science subjects. After several years in which there was a decline in the number of applications to study the hard science subjects, over the past three years there has been a positive trend in the right direction. In particular, in terms of the applications announced a few weeks ago for next September there have been big increases—of above 10 per cent.—for chemistry, physics, maths and engineering. That is solid progress, and it should be welcomed.
	The hon. Gentleman also made some very strange remarks about post-qualification applications and claimed that the Government had gone quiet on that issue. He cannot have been in the Chamber when I made a significant point during my opening speech about the importance of post-qualification applications and the fact that although the Government do not control university admissions, we are doing everything in our power to urge universities to move towards having a full system of PQA by 2012. The fact is that more than half of predicted grades are inaccurate, and in terms of both under-prediction and over-prediction—both of which are a cause for concern—students from the lowest socio-economic groups are the most adversely affected. However, it is for the benefit of people from all backgrounds that we need a fairer system of application and admission to university.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made a number of important points, but I think that he under-represented the progress that our universities are making in terms of community outreach and summer schools. Those efforts should be supported.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) made a significant point about the importance of work-based higher education. In respect of the Leitch challenge, 70 per cent. of the 2020 work force are already in work today. We need to ensure that those who are already in work have real opportunities to access higher education. That will be the biggest area of expansion in the system in future.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about the burden of debt, and there is an important issue to get across on that: the postgraduate system of debt and repayment that we have established is debt like no other. It is not like any loan that people can get anywhere on the high street because there is no real rate of interest—people repay only when they are in work and earning more than £15,000, and if after 25 years they have not paid the debt off, it is cancelled. If people could get a loan like that in any building society or bank on the high street, we would not be able to move for people queuing up to get hold it. We need to do much more to get across the benefits of the new system.
	The hon. Gentleman also decried the fact that, under the new system, there has only been a small increase in the proportion of applications from students from lower socio-economic groups. I do not deny that we need to do more, but, before we introduced the new system, it was alleged that that, if we introduced variable fees, applications would plummet, particularly from students from poorer backgrounds. That simply has not happened, and I would like some recognition to be given to that fact.
	The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) made some important points about mentoring, which is a key element of what we are seeking to do. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham talked about the 50 per cent. target, and my hon. Friend rightly said that that is about setting an ambition and an aspiration. I would hazard a guess that that 50 per cent. target probably has the greatest common currency of any public service agreement target among ordinary people in this country. I think that underlines our ambition for the expansion of higher education opportunities, both for the younger population and throughout people's working lives.
	This has been an important debate with a lot of commitment shown. We are making progress, but we undoubtedly have to do more.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the subject of Channel 4 and public service broadcasting. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), is in the Chamber for this debate, but sorry that I have had to take him from pressing duties elsewhere, at the launch of the new digital service.
	The debate offers the House its first formal opportunity for a full and frank discussion about the offensive and—in my opinion and that of many others—racist material broadcast on Channel 4 two months ago. In January, Channel 4 began broadcasting the latest and fourth series of "Celebrity Big Brother". The channel's 24-hour, seven-day-a-week coverage of celebrities isolated in a house in Hertfordshire attracted millions of viewers who had tuned in to see a narrative of human interaction. However, that series revealed a much uglier side to so-called reality television. It began with bullying, derogatory cultural references and blatant racist behaviour against the Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty from Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O'Meara—a trio of young female celebrities. Two of them have since apologised for their behaviour.
	It is not necessary or productive to provide a full list of the incidents of abuse that took place inside the "Big Brother" house, but to have an understanding of the situation we should remember that over successive days and weeks Ms Shetty was called "Shilpa Poppodum", asked whether she lived in a "house or a shack", told to "go back to the slums" and repeatedly referred to as "the Indian". Those were the bits that were broadcast, although for the many hours of footage that were shown many more hours were not aired. One wonders how much of it was in a similar vein.
	Given the 24-hour nature of the programme and its wall-to-wall coverage, it is not surprising that the public's reaction was so intense. The programme holds the record as most complained about in British television history. More than 40,000 complaints were received by the authorities. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Ministers and 91 Members of the House made it clear that they felt that the programme was doing a disservice to the multicultural society we have achieved today and was providing a major platform to the minority with such prejudiced sentiments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke for many when she said in a personal capacity that "Celebrity Big Brother" was nothing more than "racism masquerading as entertainment"—one of the most powerful and commendable statements made by anyone on this subject.
	Of course, offence was caused not only to the British Asian community, but to our friends and allies in the sub-continent. Fortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was leading a delegation to India at the time and could properly and immediately represent the rejection of the racism shown on "Big Brother". Otherwise, I fear that even greater damage would have been done to our standing abroad.
	It is of credit to Britain that this series of "Big Brother" resulted in a final victory for Ms Shetty, who won herself many admirers when she became the first ever ethnic minority winner. The Minister himself spoke for millions when in the Chamber on 29 January he congratulated Ms Shetty on her victory after what he described as a "ghastly few weeks" on the programme.
	Throughout this sorry state of affairs, Shilpa Shetty carried herself with dignity, calm and grace—a real ambassador for Asian women the world over. The millions who voted for her also deserve congratulations on their rejection of those who sought to demean and humiliate her. We should rightly pride ourselves on the steps that our country has taken in recent years to change our national culture into one that accepts differences and respects diversity.
	The loser from the whole incident was the broadcaster Channel 4. Through ignorance or wilful neglect, it allowed these broadcasts to continue through to a very bitter end and then sought to justify that on the basis that its viewers had chosen Ms Shetty as the winner even though Channel 4 had no role in or influence on the final result. In so doing, it lost the support of its viewers and it lost a multi-million sponsorship from the Carphone Warehouse and the advertising revenue of PepsiCo as those companies took the right decision to stop supporting it. It also lost the revenue from its premium rate phone lines as it was forced into donating the money to charity. Finally, it lost the trust of the nation, which had looked to Channel 4 as a responsible public service broadcaster and as a real champion of ethnic minority broadcasting—hence this debate.
	The initial response of Channel 4 during the peak of public outrage was most disappointing, as it distanced itself from the outrage felt by many. On 18 January, Channel 4 chairman, Luke Johnson, went on the "Today" programme and provided Mr. Jim Naughtie with a succession of "no comments". As the interviewer aptly pointed out, it was a great irony on that day that it appeared that the only person in the country with nothing to say on this major news story was the chairman of the broadcaster responsible for it.
	By lunchtime, when it was apparent that such stonewalling would not do, its chief executive, a tie-less Andy Duncan, appeared before the world's press in Oxford. His statement offered the opinion that what constituted racism was a "complex" area. It appears sadly from a successful career at Unilever that Mr. Duncan, the man who promoted the catchphrase "I can't believe it's not butter" also could not believe that it was racism. Mr. Duncan went on to say that it was "unquestionably a good thing" that the programme
	"raised these issues and provoked such a debate".
	Others believe that the role of "Big Brother" has a less grand purpose than creating a national debate on major issues. In fact, it was the very same Mr. Duncan who reportedly said 20 months before that "Big Brother" made no claim to provide "social or moral education" but was just a very important entertainment programme for Channel 4. Rory Bremner could have turned up on 18 January and would have done much better.
	It is perhaps not surprising that Channel 4 was so unprepared for the reaction. Remarkably for a major public institution, it is run by an all-white management board. Despite the channel's professed commitment to providing a service to all minorities, there is no way that any member of the board could have understood from personal experience what racial discrimination felt like. Perhaps that is why they found the issue so complex.
	Overall, the response of Channel 4 was pathetic, ineffective and derisory. I met Mr. Duncan last week at my request. It was clear that he felt that his response and the general response of Channel 4 was in retrospect unsatisfactory. Mistakes were made, he said. He assured me that Channel 4's internal investigation will address the areas where improvements could, and I suggest should, be forthcoming. It is a sad fact that during the events of January the channel, which was originally set up with the express intention of catering for minority interests, responded so poorly. It has damaged its own hard-won reputation in the eyes of many who previously looked to it to represent their experiences. What pride it took last year when it chose to front its alternative Queen's speech with a woman in a niqab. Was that pride before the fall?
	I hope that, at the conclusion of the investigation, Channel 4 will take a belated opportunity fully to condemn racism in all forms and fully to apologise to all offended, especially Ms Shetty. The regulator's inquiry is important—not least for the precedent that it will set in a digital age. "Big Brother" is a unique show and I have concerns about the regulatory framework. It does not have the capacity to cope with reality television programmes of this kind. Unlike a normal programme, which lasts a few hours or less, the 24/7 nature of reality programmes results in masses of footage, filmed by several cameras. In the case of "Big Brother", there would have been hundreds of hours of footage. Unfortunately, the complaints are not being assessed individually by the regulator. It has been pretty slow in responding to my requests for a meeting, although, oddly enough, it has agreed to meet me next week. The Minister will understand that, as channels proliferate on the digital spectrum, there is no effective mechanism that provides an efficient and effective oversight of the increasing number of reality shows that are broadcast over weeks or months.
	It has been reported that, in an age of strong digital competition, the future of Channel 4 is uncertain. Its chief executive has projected a £100 million shortfall for the channel once digital switchover is complete. It is clear that that is expected to be made up in the form of a direct Government subsidy. The sum of £100 million would be only slightly more than the channel receives from the "Big Brother" franchise, which accounts for between 7 and 10 per cent. of its £800 million budget. It is clear that the management at 124 Horseferry road are attempting to avoid having to make a choice. They are trying to square the circle of broadcasting high-profit television franchises while demanding a subsidy on the basis that they are a public service broadcaster serving the public interest. It would have happened eventually, but "Big Brother" has shown that that will not be possible.
	Many have misunderstood the debate as being one about editorial censorship. I must clarify that. This is a debate about how a channel that causes massive offence to the public in pursuit of advertising revenue can claim to be serving the public interest and deserving of public subsidy. Channel 4 now faces a clear choice between maintaining its distinctive and original identity and becoming just another outlet for shock television.
	I hope that the Minister will join me and clearly state that, as far as he is concerned, racism is not a complex area involving subjective opinions. He has been involved in the great steps taken by the Government to promote the equality agenda and to encourage public institutions to modernise their attitudes. I call on him to ensure that all broadcasters can properly represent today's Britain. Perhaps he can even get Channel 4 to apologise.
	I also ask the Minister to use his good offices so that the public can be assured that all the money raised by premium-rate phone lines and later pledged to charity is accounted for. Many members of the public pursued their involvement in voting for Shilpa Shetty only on the basis that Channel 4 would not directly profit from their votes. In the light of recent scandals affecting other game shows and TV competitions, of which the Minister is very aware, there are questions about how much the concerned charities should expect to receive from Channel 4 and by what deadline, and who will monitor the money earned for the charity and the processing of that amount. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that position.
	Is the Minister satisfied that the powers of the regulator are strong enough to deal with reality television formats? Can he offer the House any assurance about how far a reality-series television station could go before Ofcom could intervene with force?
	The issue of accountability is at the heart of this. Mr. Duncan explained the system of accountability in Channel 4. The chairman and non-executive members appear to be appointed by the regulator. Ofcom will be expected to regulate the broadcaster under the management of its chosen appointees. At the same time, the chief executive of Channel 4 is selected by the board of Ofcom-appointed non-executive directors. One can imagine that once the board selects Channel 4's chief executive, it will be loth to admit collective responsibility for selecting an individual who is not up to the job. Will the Minister clarify that point about accountability?
	If this case were simple, one would obviously have expected a ministerial response, but it is complicated, and Ministers cannot intervene because they have appointed a regulator to do so. However, the Minister must accept that there is a duty in such a situation for the regulator to be able to intervene and, quite frankly, press the off button. What assurances can the Minister provide the House that his Department will consider again whether the powers of the regulator are effective enough when it comes to such broadcasts?
	What are the Minister's thoughts about where the future of Channel 4 lies? We await the publication of two reports on that subject. If either investigation reveals that Channel 4, either by act or omission, was in any way responsible for the broadcasting of racist material and failed to act appropriately, will the Minister join me in expecting either the chairman or the chief executive—or both—to offer their immediate resignation?
	The past 10 years have seen a radical time of change and the adaptation of different approaches for those in the media. That will continue in forthcoming decades. The House is familiar with the continuous debate that we have on the role, responsibilities, functions and financing of the BBC. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to begin a new national debate on the future of Channel 4.

Shaun Woodward: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on securing the debate. I certainly join him unequivocally in condemning all racism, wherever and whenever it takes place. We rightly should be totally intolerant of racism in this country. Why anyone would want to put themselves up for "Celebrity Big Brother" is somewhat beyond me, and I say that as an editor of "That's Life!", which was a programme that understood the values of entertainment.
	The truth is that however awful hon. Members might find this form of programming, the public could watch our own "Celebrity Big Brother" in this Chamber every day, yet, remarkably, few choose to do so. I do not know what our viewing figures are right now, but I suspect that they are in the single figures, with hon. Members' relatives probably being the major players. However, "Big Brother" and its derivatives attract huge audiences and it is clear that the public enjoy them. Equally, "Celebrity Big Brother" enjoyed huge audiences.
	I want to put on record, as I am sure that all hon. Members will continue to do, our admiration for Shilpa Shetty. She is a woman who, even if we did not know her as a celebrity before, in the course of enduring those weeks in the house earned huge respect from many people throughout the country, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. Her resilience and dignity during what I have referred to as "ghastly" weeks, as my right hon. Friend said, were as remarkable as the apparent bullying and racism were distasteful, grotesque and highly offensive.
	My right hon. Friend has a proud track record of ensuring and fighting for equality in this country. As I have already said, I share his feelings about the need to root out racism. However, when it comes to sharing some of his conclusions, I urge caution. I absolutely understand, as he does, why so many people found the programme so distasteful. It led to Ofcom receiving a record 45,000 complaints.
	The Government's position on racism is unequivocal: we find it totally unacceptable. We have legislated to that effect, and Government policy reflects our view. We introduced a specific offence of racially aggravated harassment. In addition, under the Public Order Act 1986, there is an offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. That offence covers inflammatory comments made in public or in the media, as well as the distribution of printed material. "Celebrity Big Brother" was unquestionably highly offensive, but the question is not whether it was offensive, but whether an offence was committed. I understand that Hertfordshire police have announced that no criminal charges will be brought in connection with "Celebrity Big Brother", and the Crown Prosecution Service has stated that what occurred was clearly offensive, but not criminal.
	On editorial content, and on "Celebrity Big Brother" specifically, responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the organisations that regulate broadcasting, which in Channel 4's case is Ofcom. Ofcom is, of course, independent of Government. We believe that that is right, and that it should remain independent. It is a fundamental principle that the Government do not and should not intervene in matters of editorial or programme content, particularly when an investigation is in progress. We believe that it is right to let the regulator continue to conduct the inquiry.
	Ofcom has been charged with the task of setting and assessing standards for the content of television and radio broadcasting. Its standards code, drawn up under the Communications Act 2003, aims to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services. Its function is to provide the public with adequate protection from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material. Of course, the legitimate question in this case is whether the public have been adequately protected. That is why Ofcom's inquiry is so important. Parliament has charged Ofcom directly with establishing procedures to handle and resolve complaints, so it seems premature to prejudge the inquiry's outcome, and the procedures by which it will achieve that outcome, while the inquiry is being conducted. After all, its procedures are not a reality TV show, and while we await the outcome, we should be careful about carrying out our own voting on its procedures.
	My right hon. Friend raises the question of whether the regulator should have hit the "off" button. It has been suggested that a fundamental design fault must exist, as the big button was not hit when "Celebrity Big Brother" was on air. I suggest that we pause to make sure that what we are asking for is really what we want. We should ask whether the request truly falls in with the responsibility that Members have chosen to give Ofcom, and indeed whether it runs against the principle of providing a fair hearing, which should extend to Channel 4. Ofcom can, if appropriate, take action against a licensee while a series is on air. However, in line with the right to a fair trial and the provisions of the 2003 Act, it must give licensees an opportunity to make representations before any decision is reached on whether material is in breach of the standards code.
	There were undoubtedly tens of thousands of complaints, and clearly many people were offended, but the number of complaints about a programme is not, and should not, be a factor to be weighed in a set of scales. The fact that there has been a large number of complaints should not, prima facie, prove that a programme was guilty. We need an inquiry to be conducted.
	The question was raised of whether each complaint should have been investigated. The chief executive of Ofcom wrote to my right hon. Friend on 26 February, and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. It explained that Ofcom decided not to reply to individual complaints, not because of the high volume of complaints, but because the regulator wanted to pursue a full investigation into them. Having said that, I do not think that Channel 4 or its chief executive, Andy Duncan, are complacent or remotely insensitive to what happened. At no point did Channel 4 condone what was happening, and I know that Andy Duncan has extremely strong views—as strong as those of my right hon. Friend and myself—about racism and the need to root it out from our society.

Shaun Woodward: As far as I am aware, the regulator has not asked us for additional resources, but I do not believe that that will be a problem. If it is, I invite the regulator to tell us. We cannot allow a lack of resources to prevent us from dealing with the issue, but I genuinely do not believe that that is the case. If it is, however, we would want to help.
	In evidence heard by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in March 2007, Mr. Duncan acknowledged that there were lessons to be learned from the episode by Channel 4. Channel 4 has indicated that its own internal review of "Celebrity Big Brother" will include an examination of the channel's complaint handling, response times and communications. I share my right hon. Friend's interest in the review's conclusions, but I truly believe—and I honestly believe that this is part of the principle of natural justice—that it is only right that we should allow the channel to conduct that inquiry before we condemn it.
	I therefore urge caution before we turn our attack on Channel 4. I put on record my belief that Channel 4 is an exemplary public broadcasting channel. In its work on equality issues, for example, it tackled gay issues head-on at a time when other programmes and channels found them a difficult area to tackle. In religion, its high-quality programming has looked at different religions and cultures at a time in the past few years when some found that too difficult to handle. "What Muslims Want" was a major study in multiculturalism. "Undercover Mosque" aired during the "Celebrity Big Brother" run, and it looked at the impact of hate-style preaching in this country. My right hon. Friend will accept that to caricature Channel 4 as a channel that deliberately chose to offer only shock television is a little unfair. Channel 4 has done a great deal to further understanding and tolerance in this country, and I believe that its chief executive believes firmly in that.
	That does not mean that the result of the review by Channel 4 and of Ofcom's work will stop the House from wanting to debate the subject again. However, I urge my right hon. Friend to be cautious lest he hastily decide that Channel 4's chief executive is not up to the job or, indeed, that he has led the channel into the kind of broadcasting that does not reflect its inception in any shape or form. The review is extremely important as, indeed, is Ofcom's investigation into "Celebrity Big Brother". The Government believe that Channel 4 has a role to play alongside the BBC, both now and in future, in the provision of public service broadcasting. It has a distinctive public service remit, a great tradition of innovative, quality programme making, as well as a wide remit to appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society.
	Channel 4 has made an important contribution to broadcasting in the United Kingdom in the past 25 years, and I am confident that it will continue to do so under its existing leadership in future. It is worth reminding ourselves that only last year, a cultural diversity network survey confirmed "Channel 4 News" as the news service that Britain's ethnic minorities thought covered their issues best. That news service, of course, is broadcast under the present Channel 4 leadership.
	Although the debate has focused on allegations of racism and how they were handled, it also offers an insight into how bullying operates in our society. As a former deputy chairman of ChildLine, I saw the harm that bullying can do. It rears its revolting head by using vehicles of racism, homophobia, religion and many others. In my own household we found that the "Celebrity Big Brother" to which my right hon. Friend referred indeed provoked a discussion about racism, and also about bullying.
	The good thing is that so many people in this country complained about the programme. That demonstrates progress. I doubt that there would have been so many complaints a decade ago. We look to our broadcasters to ensure that such behaviour is not exploited as entertainment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, albeit in a private capacity, described the programme at the time as "racism masquerading as entertainment", and I think that many in the House knew exactly what she meant.
	The programme was a reality TV show, but because it allowed us to see through the window we, the public, were educated about some of the attitudes of some people in our country, and we were all ashamed of what we saw. So now we look to the broadcaster for its review to ensure that such television does not become an entertainment practice by prosecuting values which most of us hoped had long since gone. Ofcom undoubtedly has a role to play in that, and we look to its inquiry to see how we can improve the handling of complaints about such programmes.
	We should all look carefully at the lessons to be drawn. We should be cautious about expressing our own anger and focusing it, perhaps, on the leadership of Channel 4. The programme may have reflected something deeply distasteful, although regrettably not everybody finds it distasteful. The problem with bullying is that it can find any vehicle. Sometimes it is racism, sometimes it is homophobia, sometimes it is focused on women, sometimes it is focused on someone's size, but bullying is a part of our society and all of us have a duty to tackle it. I hope that that is a subject to which Channel 4 will direct its attention in the months to come.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the debate, which has raised some important issues. I promise him that I will meet him and discuss with him the outcome of the reviews, both by Channel 4 and by Ofcom. I commend him for having brought the debate to the House tonight. If in future he or other hon. Members want to raise the subject, I will be more than happy to discuss it.
	 The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Seven o'clock.